socialism, capitalism, anarchism- which do subscribe to?
18 Oct 2011, 3:34 pm
ruveyn wrote:
peebo wrote:
the basis of socialism lies in the maxim: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
Ability is bounded and needs/wants are unbounded. It will never work. What each person receives must be bounded by his production. Voluntary transfers in the form of gifts or charity will take care of the hard cases where people have become disabled or never were able (for example; mental ret*ds).
those who do not work (but are able) neither shall they eat.
ruveyn
obviously needs and wants are two different things.
_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?
Adam Smith
18 Oct 2011, 3:43 pm
visagrunt wrote:
No, because you are conflating the Marxist principle of "ownership of the means of production" with the property law concept of ownership of property. The two uses of the word are not the same.
It is entirely possible to create a corporate law framework in which the capital of a company is owned (from a poperty law sense) in private hands, but in which the collective of employees of that company exercise management control (ownership in the Marxist sense) over that capital.
If you cannot reconcile these several ideals, then that speaks to your lack of imagination and the inflexibility of your understanding. In the real world, these ideals get meshed all the time. The existence of government, its power of taxation and the public sector and its delegated authority are the principal means, but certainly not the only ones, by which this reconciliation occurs.
I will grant you that "pure" forms of these theories are largely incompatible. But since they are fantasies that cannot exist in the real world, it is utterly pointless to talk about either socialism or capitalism in such a pure form. It is an academic exercise for scholars who have tired of discussing angels and pinheads.
It is entirely possible to create a corporate law framework in which the capital of a company is owned (from a poperty law sense) in private hands, but in which the collective of employees of that company exercise management control (ownership in the Marxist sense) over that capital.
If you cannot reconcile these several ideals, then that speaks to your lack of imagination and the inflexibility of your understanding. In the real world, these ideals get meshed all the time. The existence of government, its power of taxation and the public sector and its delegated authority are the principal means, but certainly not the only ones, by which this reconciliation occurs.
I will grant you that "pure" forms of these theories are largely incompatible. But since they are fantasies that cannot exist in the real world, it is utterly pointless to talk about either socialism or capitalism in such a pure form. It is an academic exercise for scholars who have tired of discussing angels and pinheads.
if you can provide any evidence whatsoever to suggest marx's definition of ownership is anything other than a social relation in which one asserts the right of control and transference of a material thing, then i will concede this point. but i quite strongly think that you might be unable to do this. i've read marx inside out, and nowhere has it seemed evident to me that his concept of ownership equated with the exercising of "management control" and nothing else. but i'm open to being proved wrong. in the absence of such evidence, i will assume that my point stands.
_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?
Adam Smith
18 Oct 2011, 4:48 pm
peebo wrote:
obviously needs and wants are two different things.
It is not obvious at all.
Only a mind reader can tell the difference. In any case, needs and wants translate into demands were can be perceived. A say I need X. B says to A, piffle! You only want X. There is no way of resolving that empirically. All anyone can say for sure is that A demanded X.
ruveyn
18 Oct 2011, 5:49 pm
ruveyn wrote:
peebo wrote:
obviously needs and wants are two different things.
It is not obvious at all.
Only a mind reader can tell the difference. In any case, needs and wants translate into demands were can be perceived. A say I need X. B says to A, piffle! You only want X. There is no way of resolving that empirically. All anyone can say for sure is that A demanded X.
ruveyn
There's no way to discern whether a person "needs" water to stay alive, or merely "wants" water to stay alive?
Quote:
I will grant you that "pure" forms of these theories are largely incompatible. But since they are fantasies that cannot exist in the real world, it is utterly pointless to talk about either socialism or capitalism in such a pure form. It is an academic exercise for scholars who have tired of discussing angels and pinheads.
+1.
Quote:
this is a false dichotomy if ever i have seen one, and besides, a very bad argument in favour of capitalism, if that is indeed what it is intended to be.
Precisely.
One scientist once referred to humans as, "The bipolar ape."
Humans are both extremely competitive and extremely cooperative. Any claims concerning "true" human nature are nothing but speculation, and, in relation to these silly political debates, are based on speculation AND carefully cherry-picked data. There's plenty of evidence towards selfishness and/or altruism in social animals; which one chooses to pay more attention to is in direct relation to their preconceived notions.
_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."
-XFG (no longer a moderator)
18 Oct 2011, 9:00 pm
mikecartwright wrote:
Socialism is the best.
It is? Did it work for the Russians or the Chinese? The People's Republic of China (so called) has "gone Capitalist". Do you know why. Pure socialism cannot produce goods and services enough and with good quality. Only the mixed economies can do that right now.
If socialism were completely implemented the economy that did so would go to wreck and ruin in a generation.
ruveyn
19 Oct 2011, 1:59 am
ruveyn wrote:
mikecartwright wrote:
Socialism is the best.
It is? Did it work for the Russians or the Chinese? The People's Republic of China (so called) has "gone Capitalist". Do you know why. Pure socialism cannot produce goods and services enough and with good quality. Only the mixed economies can do that right now.
If socialism were completely implemented the economy that did so would go to wreck and ruin in a generation.
ruveyn
russia and china have never been socialist. this is tacitly recognised when you quite rightly refer to "the people's republic of china (so called)."
_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?
Adam Smith
Last edited by peebo on 19 Oct 2011, 2:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
19 Oct 2011, 2:20 am
the matter of whether this discussion is limited by application of pragmatism or widens into areas of theory is irrelevant in terms of defining what things actually are.
socialism and capitalism ARE mutually exclusive. the term socialism has been bastardised over the last century or so, almost to the degree of orwellian doublespeak. we can't rely upon current notions of socialism as defined in mainstream politics in a discussion of this sort.
marx's notion of ownership is not limited to some notion of "collective management".
in an effort to delineate this contradiction in a precise and succinct way, i will quote chomsky:
******************
Since its origins, socialism has meant the liberation of working people from exploitation. As the Marxist theoretician Anton Pannekoek observed, "this goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class substituting itself for the bourgeoisie," but can only be "realized by the workers themselves being master over production." Mastery over production by the producers is the essence of socialism, and means to achieve this end have regularly been devised in periods of revolutionary struggle, against the bitter opposition of the traditional ruling classes and the 'revolutionary intellectuals' guided by the common principles of Leninism and Western managerialism, as adapted to changing circumstances. But the essential element of the socialist ideal remains: to convert the means of production into the property of freely associated producers and thus the social property of people who have liberated themselves from exploitation by their master, as a fundamental step towards a broader realm of human freedom.
******************
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1986----.htm
_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?
Adam Smith
Oodain
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
19 Oct 2011, 7:11 am
free market socialism, read and be amazed, it actually works in a couple dozrn countries, some deemed better for buisness and with higher personal liberty than the us.
to say they are mutually exclusive would also mean that socialism would never be employed, in reality it will always be a mix.
_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
19 Oct 2011, 9:48 am
Oodain wrote:
free market socialism, read and be amazed, it actually works in a couple dozrn countries, some deemed better for buisness and with higher personal liberty than the us.
to say they are mutually exclusive would also mean that socialism would never be employed, in reality it will always be a mix.
to say they are mutually exclusive would also mean that socialism would never be employed, in reality it will always be a mix.
"free market socialism" is not socialism. It is the Mixed Economy in action. As long has capital is privately owned and the market determines quantities of goods produced and their prices you have the elements of capitalism. It is the regulation of business by the government and the redistribution of incomes through taxation that you are confusing with socialism. All the above elements were in place when Bismark of was chancellor of Germany. It was hardly "socialistic".
ruveyn
19 Oct 2011, 10:33 am
I don't know what to vote
I sympathize with left-anarchism(I call myself a Libertarian socialist) but I don't want mix my vote with "anarcho"-capitalist and volunteryst
Quote:
the basis of socialism lies in the maxim: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
that is communism
Oodain
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
19 Oct 2011, 11:47 am
ruveyn wrote:
Oodain wrote:
free market socialism, read and be amazed, it actually works in a couple dozrn countries, some deemed better for buisness and with higher personal liberty than the us.
to say they are mutually exclusive would also mean that socialism would never be employed, in reality it will always be a mix.
to say they are mutually exclusive would also mean that socialism would never be employed, in reality it will always be a mix.
"free market socialism" is not socialism. It is the Mixed Economy in action. As long has capital is privately owned and the market determines quantities of goods produced and their prices you have the elements of capitalism. It is the regulation of business by the government and the redistribution of incomes through taxation that you are confusing with socialism. All the above elements were in place when Bismark of was chancellor of Germany. It was hardly "socialistic".
ruveyn
again your definiton of scialism seems stuck at outright comunism.
as i said in the previous post all western governments are a mix,
in my eyes capitalism speaks for the marketplace and socialism for the services and actions of the government (as a base of their actions not their actions themselves)
_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
19 Oct 2011, 11:53 am
Oodain wrote:
again your of scialism seems stuck at outright comunism.
In a "true" socialist system the means of production will be owned collectively, not by individuals or private collections of individuals. Personal property such as clothes, food, houses, cars and such could be owned individually but in a real honest to goodness (or badness) socialist system the means of production will be collectively owned and the only employer will be the collective.
Such a system is doomed to failure. People will very rarely invent, create or innovate unless there is some kind of reward. Merely getting a Hero of the People Medal will simply not do.
ruveyn
19 Oct 2011, 12:05 pm
peebo wrote:
if you can provide any evidence whatsoever to suggest marx's definition of ownership is anything other than a social relation in which one asserts the right of control and transference of a material thing, then i will concede this point. but i quite strongly think that you might be unable to do this. i've read marx inside out, and nowhere has it seemed evident to me that his concept of ownership equated with the exercising of "management control" and nothing else. but i'm open to being proved wrong. in the absence of such evidence, i will assume that my point stands.
Well, let's consider the Manifesto of the Communist Party. What are the reforms set out therein?
Abolition of real estate rights [emphasis added]
Progressive income taxation
Abolition of inheritance rights
Confiscation of all enemy properties
Nationalization of banking
State ownership of the media
State production planning
Equal obligation of all individuals to work.
Abolition of the distinction between town and country via state-mandated population distribution
Free education
Nowhere is the confiscation of personal property set out there. The abolition of neither equity nor debt investment is included in this list. The existence of private wealth is not foreclosed, but it is limited to personal property (in the common law sense, movable property in the civil law sense) and its use as a means of political control is vastly curtailed.
_________________
--James
Oodain
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
19 Oct 2011, 12:06 pm
ruveyn wrote:
Oodain wrote:
again your of scialism seems stuck at outright comunism.
In a "true" socialist system the means of production will be owned collectively, not by individuals or private collections of individuals. Personal property such as clothes, food, houses, cars and such could be owned individually but in a real honest to goodness (or badness) socialist system the means of production will be collectively owned and the only employer will be the collective.
Such a system is doomed to failure. People will very rarely invent, create or innovate unless there is some kind of reward. Merely getting a Hero of the People Medal will simply not do.
ruveyn
not that is comunism (a comunal system where everyone owns everything)
socialism is where the state is used to take care of the social services of the population.
again teh focus is that they have each their use, to limit oneself to a single ideology one will limit oneself in other ways too.
_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
19 Oct 2011, 12:15 pm
Oodain wrote:
not that is comunism (a comunal system where everyone owns everything)
socialism is where the state is used to take care of the social services of the population.
.
that is what is generally called a "mixed economy" The main activity of production is carried out by privately capitalized firms in a relatively unregulated market. Social services such as schools, roads, some infrastructure is done with tax payer money. Medical services could be either privately provided, provided by government (through an insurance scheme) or both.
As long as production is handled mostly privately you don't have a socialist economy at all.
ruveyn
