[ POLL ] What Is Socialism?

Post Reply New Topic

All of the options given in the poll are loaded, leaving dissenters to explain themselves and be open for attack. That's my contribution.

The video doesn't show up on my site for whatever reason? I can only go off your characterization. Monopolies that capitalists have that are enforced by the state if pretty much the definition of cronyism.

Here you go:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05janErSuZI

Thats a quite common thinking but wrong. The labourers should control the state and own and control production. But Lenin said there should still exist a free market (like in capitalism). The labourers should own and control production and not the state. But Lenin died to early. The real problems came with Stalin who wanted the control of everything. Because there wasn't any free market and no concurrence afterwards the system failed.
But that's past. The productivity of work has increased a lot because of big improvements in industrial and agricultural automatization. There aren't as much labourers required anymore and the number of jobs outside of the industrial automatization is permanently decreasing. The unemployment rate will increase a lot in future. I think the only way out - without war and killing lots of people - will be the introduction of a communism like system starting with the introduction of an unconditional basic income for everyone and that the state takes the ownership and control of the banks after the next crashes.

Thanks for sharing the video. I disagree with some of Tucker's assumptions and find his market socialism contradictory for reasons I will explain. One major assumption is that interest, profit and rent are unjust ways of deriving income that are not derived from labor. This is incorrect. Inheritance is another matter.

Interest: I am a farmer I grow corn. Every year I replant my corn field with my corn seeds. One day a young woman comes to my door and says she plans to start her own more corn farm, and asks if I could give her some corn seeds to start her corn farm. I have more seeds than I need but not enough extra to give her to start her farm while fully planting mine. I tell her ok, I will give you enough seeds to start your farm if you give me more corn than I would get planting the seeds myself. She says ok. She starts her corn farm and I now have more corn than I originally going to start with. This is interest.

Profit: I am a farmer. I grow corn. I grow more corn than I actually eat. A hundred miles away is city. In the city is a man who makes clothes, he makes more clothes than he needs. I travel to the city and trade him corn for clothes. We both get what we need. He gets corn to feed his family, I get clothes to keep me warm. Traveling a hundred miles is arduous. A merchant comes to my farm. He'll give me clothes for more corn than the clothesmaker would, but now I don't have to travel one hundred miles. I agree to pay him slightly more corn because now I don't have to travel. He goes to the city. He negotiates with the clothes maker to pay the same amount of corn I used to for the same number of clothes. The clothes maker says I paid the farmer the same that is fair. The Merchant has now made a profit. By travelling between me and the clothes maker he has made the difference in corn that I was willing to part with in order to avoid traveling 100 miles. This is profit.

Rent: I'm a farmer I grow corn. One day the Merchant comes and offers to sell me a horse to help me farm for a lot of corn. I decide that I can make much more corn with the help of this horse and give him a lot of corn for the horse. With the help of the horse I am producing a lot of corn, but I don't need my horse all the time. One day my neighbor comes. He notices I am making a lot of corn with my horse, and offers me a lot of corn for the horse. I do not want to sell my horse for that much corn. My horse makes me more corn than I would be getting from my neighbor. However, I do not use my horse all the time. I say to my neighbor if you want to pay me one tenth of the corn you offered me to borrow my horse on the days I'm not using it than I get some extra corn and you get to use the horse. My neighbor calculates this is a net gain for him and agrees to the term. I loan my horse and make more corn than before, while my neighbor gets to use my horse some of the time for a price and makes more corn than before. This is rent.

We call it Brexit, and that in itself is a euphoric definition, when it actually succeeds its full advantaged position, away from European set standards and beyond. We in the West, like to think we can govern ourselves on democracy as a ruling factor of consequence or rule, but in wide contrast to the overriding principles of the founding text of socialism which I've studied to higher distinction, we are all born out of poverty, and are what many consider bourgeoisie or nuclear foundations on which to provide a better whole even if the ruling classes like to lead with the upper hand.
I agreed with what you pointed out about the poll as it looks like a communist/Marxist definitions to either a biased or fascist modern perspective on leading politics, in an ever changing globally repressed economic tidal wave.
Religion is not based on scientific fact anymore that there is evidence we are all doomed recipients of class distinction.



A) You are describing socialist anarchy and B), you are leaning towards politics and economic infrastructure which is not Socialism as a whole. The ''socialist parties'' you are referring to are born from war governing criteria and royal institution, whereby we humbly consider it our prised burden and honorary status as a royal nation. You can't parry the facts as misguided social rule alone. We don't rule from politicians alone, hence why we have parliamentary defence.
If you want to rule out who you don't like, based from sitting on government sidelines, we have tall order definitions dating back to the Magna Carta. Don't confuse socialism and politics together, as it could set in confusion a flooded chain of events.

Last edited by PearlsofWisdom on 10 Mar 2019, 7:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I came to wonder if there is some cultural bias to this. So I decided to try other languages. The Larousse on line dictionary gives 2 definitions, the first of which Google translates thusly (a damn good translation BTW, I can read French quite well but a precise translation into English is still challenging for me):

"Theory aimed at transforming social organization for the purpose of justice among citizens in terms of work, remuneration, education, housing, etc." OK I tweaked this definition a bit but probably improved it. If somebody is bilingual (Canadians I'm looking at you) please offer an opinion.

The second definition, which I won't bother trying to translate, refers to the Marxist-Leninist definition, is much closer to the one you give from the Oxford Dictionary. It would seem the Anglophone world has a bias in favor of conflating Socialism with Marxism. Please note the first definition from Larousse is vague but most definitely does not mention anything with regard to ownership of the means of production etc.

I am going to take a step back in this discussion...
I am mixing context and my thinking needs to be sorted out...
I am also deviating from the context the OP set initially...
Perhaps I should start my own thread to develop my conceptual fetus...

It has been fun playing with ideas, but as I indicated, I need to get my shite together before I get drowned by concept juggling...

I might peck here and there, though...

Pax...

No worries, Pepe; all contributions are welcome, provided they advance the stated subject.

Socialism might not take a "position" on collectivization and things like that----but the inevitable effect of some sort of socialist policy is some sort of collectivism.

In general, I find that "pure" socialism, or something akin to it, takes away individual initiative.

Your comment is very much appreciated...

Cheers, cobber...



That is my impression also...

Last edited by Pepe on 11 Mar 2019, 7:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Back atcher, mate!

OK, where here's your answer:

https://www.politicalorphans.com/socialism-and-capitalism-are-both-irrelevant/

Enjoy!

Socialism, can means everything...

In the Occidental nations (North America, and Europe), the Socialism is refering to Democratic Socialism, o Social-Democracy, that permit to exist private initaitive in a free-market, but controlled by the state to avoid that the negative conseguences of "capitalism" will ruin the society (Olof Palme former assasinated prime minister of Sweden said: "Capitalism is a like a sheep, you need to shear it, but not killing it", supoorting al civil and political freedoms.

Communism is refering to a regimes like North Korea, Cuba, etc...

The societal or worker oriented ownership of the means of production in which every individual is justly entitled to the full product of his or her own labour.

My prefered model of socialism is libertarian favouring an arrangement based on reciprocity, competition, and just cost in accordance with the ideas of Smith, Ricardo, Proudhon, and Warren.

Market Means, Socialist Ends.