Socialist Party's policies

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

Why ?

Why? - because Historical materialism itself is a working example of a methodological approach to the study of society.

So you ask for a working example of a working example.

Idiocy or ignorance. You choose.

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

I take it you have no answer then so I see you are losing the cool, when the argument is lost the personal invective always comes out .

When the argument is lost?

You have not presented an argument.

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

Why? - because Historical materialism itself is a working example of a methodological approach to the study of society.

So you ask for a working example of a working example.

Idiocy or ignorance. You choose.

I was hoping your might give us a Nation , a State , possibly a commune , how about even a parish , I know a Co-op ? Just one -You choose

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Are you going to ask me a series of irrelevant questions are is this going somewhere?

It might sink in that to try compare the Soviet Union to Western Industrialised nations who had a couple of hundred years head start at development and industrialisation and were largely untouched by WW2 is not particularly bright.

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

I was hoping your might give us a Nation , a State , possibly a commune , how about even a parish , I know a Co-op ? Just one -You choose

How can I give you an example of a nation or state of a methodological approach to studying society?

Can you give me a bernoulli equation country?

Can you give me a working example of a symbolic interactionist country?

Or a psychoanalytic country?

If you asked a mathematician for an example of a country based on herons formula he would know you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

It might sink in that to try compare the Soviet Union to Western Industrialised nations who had a couple of hundred years head start at development and industrialisation and were largely untouched by WW2 is not particularly bright.

I gave you a specific example of Eastern and Western Europe from 1945 on . As perfect test tube study as you will get in the real world.

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

How can I give you a nation or state of a methodological approach to studying society?

Can you give me a bernoulli equation country?

Can you give me a working example of a symbolic interactionist country?

Or a psychoanalytic country?

This is just rubbish at this stage. I will leave you at it . Try reading a few of those authors I mentioned.

Soldie

coolemon wrote: »

Wrong about what exactly?

The only ones I know are wrong are those wanting "real working examples" of Historical Materialism and Marxism.

I know they are wrong because its a ****ing stupid question to ask.

I haven't said anything about the above. Are you conflating my posts with someone else's? I accept that you're responding to a lot of people but I think the original post of mine that you responded to - the one you abruptly dismissed as a misinformed rant - was pretty clear.

TL;DR socialists never seem to be willing to accept that the many failed Marxist experiments were actually socialism. At the same time, they invariably seem happy to accept that the world's problems - e.g. the arming of ISIS - are a direct result of capitalism. A proper discussion is impossible with such a level of intellectual dishonesty.

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

This is just rubbish at this stage. I will leave you at it . Try reading a few of those authors I mentioned.

Rubbish?

How?

You havn't a notion what it is you are arguing against.

coolemon

Soldie wrote: »

I haven't said anything about the above. Are you conflating my posts with someone else's? I accept that you're responding to a lot of people but I think the original post of mine that you responded to - the one you abruptly dismissed as a misinformed rant - was pretty clear.

TL;DR socialists never seem to be willing to accept that the many failed Marxist experiments were actually socialism. At the same time, they invariably seem happy to accept that the world's problems - e.g. the arming of ISIS - are a direct result of capitalism. A proper discussion is impossible with such a level of intellectual dishonesty.

So what you are saying is that you want me to accept that what you describe as "failed Marxist experiments" were 'actually socialism'.

Why do you want me to accept that when it makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever to my theoretical paradigm? - or, to Marxism in general.

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

I gave you a specific example of Eastern and Western Europe from 1945 on . As perfect test tube study as you will get in the real world.

How - when industrialisation largely took off in western Europe far sooner than it did in eastern Europe.

Your test tube will crack open with you trying to horseshoe the two in there.

Soldie

coolemon wrote: »

So what you are saying is that you want me to accept that what you describe as "failed Marxist experiments" were 'actually socialism'.

Why do you want me to accept that when it makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever to my theoretical paradigm? - or, to Marxism in general.

I hate to be pedantic - genuinely, I do - but please consider what I'm actually saying instead of jumping to conclusions. I'm not asking you to accept that "failed Marxist experiments" were 'actually socialism'". I made an observation that socialists typically deny that socialist experiments had anything whatsoever to do real socialism while at the same time taking a pretty liberal interpretation of what capitalism is. I find this intellectually dishonest. Even if you disagree with my claim that it's intellectually dishonest, surely you can accept that a proper discussion is impossible if neither side is prepared to find some common ground. I don't get the impression that you're prepared to do that despite your claims to be objective.

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

How - when industrialisation largely took off in western Europe far sooner than it did in eastern Europe.

Your test tube will crack open with you trying to horseshoe the two in there.

read a book - both half of the continents were equally devastated in 1945 . Czechoslovakia, Hungary ,Poland East Germany etc were every bit as industrialised as the West and in the case of Italy outside of Lombardy , or rural France much more so .

Both started from scratch,both had winning superpowers pulling the strings, in one case we have one country divided in two never mind one continent .

The only difference is they had radically different systems - 50 years or so later who was left standing and why ?

It is a near perfect example for discussion .

Now for once can you engage in a discussion and forget the invective.

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

It might sink in that to try compare the Soviet Union to Western Industrialised nations who had a couple of hundred years head start at development and industrialisation and were largely untouched by WW2 is not particularly bright.

Let's compare East and West Germany, East Germans wanted to live in the West so badly the Soviets had to buld a big wall and shoot anyone who tried to escape.

alistair spuds

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Let's compare East and West Germany, East Germans wanted to live in the West so badly the Soviets had to buld a big wall and shoot anyone who tried to escape.

The wall was built to protect the people of DDR from the influence of evil capitalist imperialism infecting the socialist peoples paradise of the DDR. Escapees were obviously brainwashed by evil capitalist imperialism and didn't properly understand marxist theory.

coolemon

Soldie wrote: »

I made an observation that socialists typically deny that socialist experiments had anything whatsoever to do real socialism while at the same time taking a pretty liberal interpretation of what capitalism is.
I find this intellectually dishonest. Even if you disagree with my claim that it's intellectually dishonest, surely you can accept that a proper discussion is impossible if neither side is prepared to find some common ground. I don't get the impression that you're prepared to do that despite your claims to be objective.

What common ground do you want?

Any discussion on this subject requires a mutual understanding of the sociological concepts of, for example, Marxian class. Or of the principles of historical materialism.

As soon as you throw things like that out the window then how can you have common ground.

Within what sociological frame are discussions to take place?

You cant have a discussion when one person says North Korea is a dictatorship of the proletariat while using a completely different definition of class than someone who says it is not based upon that different definition of class.

As you say, discussion requires common ground. Of shared concepts and definitions.

That rarely happens when you have a bunch of people who know little of the concepts and definition throwing their opinions around on the subject.

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

What common ground do you want?

Any discussion on this subject requires a mutual understanding of the sociological concepts of, for example, Marxian class. Or of the principles of historical materialism.

As soon as you throw things like that out the window then how can you have common ground.

Within what sociological frame are discussions to take place?

You cant have a discussion when one person says North Korea is a dictatorship of the proletariat while using a completely different definition of class than someone who says it is not based upon that different definition of class.

As you say, discussion requires common ground. Of shared concepts and definitions.

How about the ability to put food on the table, provide a job , let people read what they want ?

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

read a book - both half of the continents were equally devastated in 1945 . Czechoslovakia, Hungary ,Poland East Germany etc were every bit as industrialised as the West and in the case of Italy outside of Lombardy , or rural France much more so .

Both started from scratch,both had winning superpowers pulling the strings, in one case we have one country divided in two never mind one continent .

The only difference is they had radically different systems - 50 years or so later who was left standing and why ?

It is a near perfect example for discussion .

Now for once can you engage in a discussion and forget the invective.

But why are you making such an effort to compare the two rather than explain why they came about to begin with?

Within that explanation you will find the reason for the fruitlessness of your attempts at comparability.

What if Africa developed industrialisation first? What if Uruguay developed the first atomic bomb? What if this? What if that?

There are no what ifs. History is history and there are reasons why it unfolded the way it did.

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

How about the ability to put food on the table, provide a job , let people read what they want ?

What are you on about?

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

But why are you making such an effort to compare the two rather than explain why they came about to begin with?

Within that explanation you will find the reason for the fruitlessness of your attempts at comparability.

What if Africa developed industrialisation first? What if Uruguay developed the first atomic bomb? What if this? What if that?

There are no what ifs. History is history and there are reasons why it unfolded the way it did.

Why are you avoiding the question ?

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

Why are you avoiding the question ?

Because, like your other questions, they are not particularly informed about my actual perspective and outlook.

What will me saying East Germany was worse off than West Germany actually prove?

Neither came about because someone thought of the 'merits' of market capitalism or state-capitalism and where people had some great choice on the matter. They came about because of specific historical circumstances - of the allied and soviet capture of German territory from different sides.

The establishment of the West German and East German states largely served the same socio-economic purpose. The establishment of institutional and regularised structures for economic production and the capturing of economic surplus by an enprivileged and dominant class.

The different cultural forms underpinning the creation of those structures resulted in different organisational forms and methods which ultimately served the same class function. Different methods, structures and organisational forms had their positives and negatives depending in what way you want to look at it at all levels.

quadrifoglio verde

coolemon wrote: »

The internet is not part of human nature. Its an external instrument developed from specific material conditions.

Thats like saying the specific incident of dropping the atomic bomb is an integral part of human nature.

Stupid, really.

You can't fathom how money became an integral part of human nature. I can, because its the best thing that works. If there was a better alternative to money we would use it. It's why we stopped using cattle as a form of currency.
Likewise the internet. It's the best form of communication that works, if it was worse than the carrier pigeon, I'd be having this discussion with you and its be taking months for a response. Actually I wouldn't be having this discussion. And that's why the internet has become an integral part of human life and society.
You can be in mother Russia and I can be in enemey territory and we can still have this discussion. Likewise I can send you money from right around the globe, it's kind of difficult with a cow.

oscarBravo

coolemon wrote: »

Of course. Without some form of categorisation or concept it is difficult to analyse or understand anything. Its one of the reasons we have language.

Sure, but I'm not buying into your taxonomy. It's over-simplistic in its requirement to quantise complex issues in a way that fits its preconceptions.

Your socialist worldview requires that you label people as proletariat, bourgeois, elite, whatever. That was a simplistic approach in Marx's day; it's hopelessly out of its depth a century and a half later.

From what details you have provided you sound as if you would occupy a position as bourgeoisie.

While you yourself add value through your labour to the company you still occupy an economic relationship which is in contradiction to other non-owning employees of the company. How many was there, 5?

I didn't say, and I don't see that it's relevant - unless there's a threshold for the number of people employed, or the percentage of the business owned, that promotes (or is it a demotion?) one from proletariat to bourgeoisie.

I assume your company is not a co-operative so you will have different economic relations than non-owning employees.

If **** hits the fan, that is when differences in your position may arise as you try to reduce wages or increase the working time of your employees to keep your ship afloat.

Yes. It's what happens when resources become scarce: expenditure gets reduced accordingly.

I've yet to see an explanation as to how business (or its socialist replacement) deals with a scarcity of resources, apart from a blithe promise that scarcity wouldn't be a problem if capitalism were eliminated, which is little more than "one for everyone in the audience" marketing fluff.

It's interesting you mention co-operatives. Before I formed my current business, I founded a community co-op that did the same thing. I did it for one primary reason: to bring broadband to the rural area where I lived when it became clear that no commercial player was interested in doing so.

The co-op model worked extremely well: several neighbours contributed funds and other necessary resources, and within a few months we had broadband in our rural area.

The cracks in the model appeared later. I was the only person in the co-op with the necessary skills to maintain and operate the network, which meant that I was literally doing all the work. All of it. Now, according to your proposed society, that's fine: one person does all the work, every other person does no work, and everyone benefits equally insofar as they all have broadband. And I got the gratitude and recognition of my community. Which, as I've mentioned before, I can't eat.

So I decided to see if there was a viable business model. I staked a considerable sum of money, and persuaded a number of others to do likewise. We gave banks personal guarantees that could have cost us our homes. In short, we took risks, and nearly a decade later, those risks are starting to look like paying off.

So yes: if the **** hits the fan, my employees are in a different place from me. They may find themselves out of work. But not one of them has ever faced the risks inherent in setting up and running a small business. That's not something I'd hold against them; it's not for everyone. But to paint them as hapless victims of a mode of production that gives them no opportunity to live their lives as anything other than wage slaves is, as I've said before, patronising and insulting to the excellent people I'm proud to call my employees.

Those non material forms as outlined by Maslow:

http://figur8.net/baby/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Maslow-hierarchy.jpg

I'm familiar with Maslow, thanks. The idea that a society will run smoothly with some people working hard and other people not bothering their hole to show up most days, and with both types of people enjoying the same lifestyle - but with the hard workers getting, what? a worker of the month plaque? - sorry, but that's outright fantasy and completely ignore human nature on several levels.

I have no idea whether all traces of capitalism will be removed for socialism to work.

You talked about getting rid of money. How can capitalism work without money?

Its not as if someone can simply choose what mode of production to implement. People have tried that but it has failed in the past. It would be like employing 20 people to operate one phone.

So there's no roadmap. Socialists and Communists alike are all, this is the way the world should be - but we haven't the first clue how to get there from here.

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

Because, like your other questions, they are not particularly informed about my actual perspective and outlook.

What will me saying East Germany was worse off than West Germany actually prove?

Neither came about because someone thought of the 'merits' of market capitalism or state-capitalism and where people had some great choice on the matter. They came about because of specific historical circumstances - of the allied and soviet capture of German territory from different sides.

The establishment of the West German and East German states largely served the same socio-economic purpose. The establishment of institutional and regularised structures for economic production and the capturing of economic surplus by an enprivileged and dominant class.

The different cultural forms underpinning the creation of those structures resulted in different organisational forms and methods which ultimately served the same class function. Different methods, structures and organisational forms had their positives and negatives depending in what way you want to look at it at all levels.

I have no other questions - just the same question over and over and in direct response to your post listing the achievements of the communist bloc.

So it was you opened the door I just took you at face value. What you are really saying is you get to list whatever you want and when a reply comes back you just avoid it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Iwasfrozen

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I blame Star Trek, Gene Roddenberry has a lot to answer for.

Essien

If we're doing away with financial services, what happens with the idea of credit?

How do I actually get the property, vehicle or any number of nice things I might ordinarily need credit for?

kevin711

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

No - your contribution / opinion is not 'on topic' because it is not based on any evidence - it is a bsseless anti- Soicialist Party rant.

Not surprisingly this thread has now degenerated into utter rubbish being spouted by a bunch of right-wing hacks that is not worth the time or effort - so I will be taking my leave.

A telling 'Socialist' response - anyone who disagrees with your stance is branded a 'right wing hack' (again, the 'socialist' obsession with 'us' and 'them' labels) and consigned to the 'utter rubbish' bin. But of course, historical 'socialism' doesn't have a great record of allowing free speech, does it..

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

coolemon

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

because its the best thing that works. If there was a better alternative to money we would use it. It's why we stopped using cattle as a form of currency.

We stopped using cattle as a form of currency because the economic base of society changed requiring another system of exchange.

Arranged marriage, for example, which was widespread across Western Europe, is not necessarily a worse form of marriage. It was a from of marriage which allowed for the continuation of family status and the family estate in mainly rural based societies. And we see arranged marriage serve the same function in agrarian and semi-feudal societies today.

Industrialisation and urbanisation changed all that.

But not because people suddenly said 'oh arranged marriage' is worse.

Likewise. Money emerged from specific economic conditions for which it suited. Not because it is "the best" system. If it was "the best" system you wouldn't have cattle still being traded in agrarian and semi-feudal societies today despite having national currencies.

coolemon

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sure, but I'm not buying into your taxonomy. It's over-simplistic in its requirement to quantise complex issues in a way that fits its preconceptions.

It is not based on preconceptions. It is based on observations of existing social and economic patterns.

Your socialist worldview requires that you label people as proletariat, bourgeois, elite, whatever. That was a simplistic approach in Marx's day;

It doesn't. I use various class paradigms depending on their utility. Marxian class is very limited in what it explains in terms of social phenomenon.

But for what I am discussing here it is highly useful in identifying and understanding the economic logic of capitalism. A logic which, whatever way you want to twist it and explain otherwise, broadly features a contradiction between labour and capital.

That has not changed at all. It is inherent to the system.

Sure, at times and in places there have been shared ownership schemes, worker owned shares of their place of employment and so on. But they are not the predominant feature of global capitalism.

I've yet to see an explanation as to how business (or its socialist replacement) deals with a scarcity of resources, apart from a blithe promise that scarcity wouldn't be a problem if capitalism were eliminated, which is little more than "one for everyone in the audience" marketing fluff.

Presumably a socialist society - or a communist society - would have elements of the rational planning of resources as opposed to a market based economy.

But the primary goal is to remove the material incentive. Without that things, I would think, would be shared and accumulated less. Meaning less pressure on material resources.

The cracks in the model appeared later. I was the only person in the co-op with the necessary skills to maintain and operate the network, which meant that I was literally doing all the work. All of it. Now, according to your proposed society, that's fine: one person does all the work, every other person does no work, and everyone benefits equally insofar as they all have broadband. And I got the gratitude and recognition of my community. Which, as I've mentioned before, I can't eat.

You cant eat it because your co-operative and you are still operating in a capitalist economy. Gratitude does not produce money. I thought that would have been very obvious.

So I decided to see if there was a viable business model. I staked a considerable sum of money, and persuaded a number of others to do likewise. We gave banks personal guarantees that could have cost us our homes. In short, we took risks, and nearly a decade later, those risks are starting to look like paying off.

Well good for you and I hope you succeed. BTW, I too have to live within the existing economic logic. I don't get fed off of gratitude either.

But to paint them as hapless victims of a mode of production that gives them no opportunity to live their lives as anything other than wage slaves is, as I've said before, patronising and insulting to the excellent people I'm proud to call my employees.

Is everyone not "victims" (to use your word) of the predominant economic system? You said yourself that you had to take personal risks to establish your company. Risks other employees did not take.

You yourself, and indeed I, have to work and operate within the predominant economic logic of the system.

But that does not mean that I, or society in general, should not seek to understand the operations of a system which, whatever way you want to look at it, has had and continues to have massive problems. And to struggle to improve that.

But at the end of the day, and bar from becoming a bandit, everyone has to take risks and work within the system. But that's something very obvious.

I'm familiar with Maslow, thanks. The idea that a society will run smoothly with some people working hard and other people not bothering their hole to show up most days, and with both types of people enjoying the same lifestyle - but with the hard workers getting, what? a worker of the month plaque? - sorry, but that's outright fantasy and completely ignore human nature on several levels. You talked about getting rid of money. How can capitalism work without money? So there's no roadmap. Socialists and Communists alike are all, this is the way the world should be - but we haven't the first clue how to get there from here.

Capitalism cannot work without money. If you are familiar with Maslow then it should be rather obvious that "material incentive" and "money" does not feature necessarily. And why would it when such incentives are rather new to human society.

Plaque of the month award?

I don't have a crystal ball. But I can point out what is and what has been and make inferences as to other possibilities. That is all I can do.

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

I have no other questions - just the same question over and over and in direct response to your post listing the achievements of the communist bloc.

So it was you opened the door I just took you at face value. What you are really saying is you get to list whatever you want and when a reply comes back you just avoid it.

Marienbad, the path that you have been trying to bring down is not one I want to go.

You said it yourself. Things are not black and white.

But it appears to me that that is exactly the way you see it.

I said from the start. Both have their merits and drawbacks. But you just want to see these societies aas either black or white, failures or successes.

Its not a game of two dimensional top trumps that we can simply compare East and West Germany in the way you would like.

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

Marienbad, the path that you have been trying to bring down is not one I want to go.

You said it yourself. Things are not black and white.

But it appears to me that that is exactly the way you see it.

I said from the start. Both have their merits and drawbacks. But you just want to see these societies aas either black or white, failures or successes.

Its not a game of two dimensional top trumps that we can simply compare East and West Germany in the way you would like.

no coolemon , you opened the door and now you don't like the answer.

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It is quite possible that some form of capitalist exchange may exist for some time in a socialist or communist society (using my definition of those terms, not yours). Indeed barter or forms of it still exist in all societies today on a limited level. But I would think that social control over production would eliminate the need to exchange things to the same extent.

Perhaps if you were an artist or an independent craftsperson you might somehow find someone to trade something with. But bitcoin? What are you going to buy with it?

It would seem rather pointless. Like me trying to buy something with pogs. I guess I could trade them for other pogs...

But I am hardly an embryonic mode of production doing it.

In all human history, we have never had an advanced society that has not had a concept of money. As Aristotle himself noted in his Politics, "When the inhabitants of one country became more dependent on those of another, and they imported what they needed, and exported what they had too much of, money necessarily came into use."

That "all human history" is a very very short period of time, as I am sure you know. I think historical materialists give a very good outline in regards the emergence and development of money. More than anyone, I think.

Now, coolemon tells us that in his socialistic future there would be no financial services sector -- no banks, no stock markets, no bond markets, no mortgage lending, no insurance industry, no credit cards. The financial architecture that has evolved over millennia would be abolished in one fell swoop.

Entire cultures and divisions of labour emerged around the utilisation of the horse. In fact humanities use of the horse is quite likely older than the development of the financial architecture over millennia.

And in "one fell swoop" the use of the horse - and the entire workforce, skill base and division of labour used for its utilisation - is all but wiped out in western Europe. okay, I see the odd carriage for tourists, the horse racing on TV and the odd barge was still being pulled with them along the canal well into the 20th century. But they are gone.

And there were people like you who thought they would never see the day.

So, can we have some more clarity about what this moneyless society would actually look like? To pick a simple example, if I want a loaf of bread in my capitalistic society, I can walk to the nearest shop and buy one in exchange for a few dollars (or euros). How would I obtain my loaf of bread in this socialist, moneyless world?

I presume you would go to your local shop and take your loaf of bread and that's it. You wouldn't have the material incentive to, say, hoard the bread because its free. But that might happen occasionally but people might see it as OCD or something.

coolemon

Essien wrote: »

If we're doing away with financial services, what happens with the idea of credit?

How do I actually get the property, vehicle or any number of nice things I might ordinarily need credit for?

Property(housing) is quite a difficult issue. Because each 'unit' is geographically situated it is not a commodity like any other. It is not entirely duplicable.

But there are many mechanisms even today for which housing is allocated. It is not some impossible problem to overcome without a money or credit system.

Cars are quite different though. They can be duplicated and moved around. They would be available to those who want one.

I wonder will the development of driverless cars change the aspirations and requirements of individual ownership for cars in the future though, even within capitalism.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Elements of capitalism go back much further than the industrial revolution and feudalism. But they were not predominant.

As I said, barter still exists presently. But it is not predominant. The social superstructure is not based on barter. And what its existence today in Ireland proves for you I don't know.

I think it's reasonable to ask you how you plan to accomplish something that has never been done before in all recorded history -- i.e., run an advanced economy without a financial system.

Socialism is not "planned" or brought into existence by me. It would require the active input and human ingenuity of millions of minds.

But for my speculative and very limited input, you will have to be more specific with your question. How do you mean "run" the economy?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Essien

coolemon wrote: »

Cars are quite different though. They can be duplicated and moved around. They would be available to those who want one.

Cool. So if everyone wanted a Maybach, Bugatti or Bentley, this could be facilitated under your proposed system.

Correct?

A Primal Nut

coolemon wrote: »

I presume you would go to your local shop and take your loaf of bread and that's it. You wouldn't have the material incentive to, say, hoard the bread because its free. But that might happen occasionally but people might see it as OCD or something.

And who would produce the bread? It would require some kind of central planning which immediately means individuals have no freedom as they have to do whatever the government tells them to do in order for the system to work. Without force the system falls down and nobody bothers to produce anything.

Then if you have to hope the government or not corrupt and have the magical ability to anticipate people's needs all over the country at any point, as opposed to businesses filling the gaps, which has proved to be much more efficient.

For example, under the USSR the central planners decided Ukraine should export all it's food to Russia as it was felt Ukraine didn't need it. As some people say is great about Socialism, everyone had jobs. Didn't do them much good though; as 4 million people starved to death and many more killed for not complying.

Of course there is no way the Ukrainian people would accept voluntarily so in order for Socialism to work in that case the government had to implement it with an Iron Fist. The tyranny of the USSR wasn't by accident (as most socialists like to say) - it was required to stop the people from rebelling. Without the use of force and intimidation, the USSR wouldn't have lasted very long at all, because central planning failed miserably to provide even basic necessities for the ordinary people, especially outside Moscow.

Why anyone would want to put their fate in the hands of a bunch of central planners is beyond me.

oscarBravo

coolemon wrote: »

...identifying and understanding the economic logic of capitalism. A logic which, whatever way you want to twist it and explain otherwise, broadly features a contradiction between labour and capital.

I reject that premise. That's the quantisation I was talking about earlier: either you control capital, or you sell your labour. The world isn't that simple; an ever greater percentage of people both part-own businesses (either in the private company sense that I do, or through publicly-traded shares) and sell their labour.

But the primary goal is to remove the material incentive.

That's a phrase that gets repeated quite a lot, but it's far from clear to me what it means. The fault may lie with JRG, who tried to talk about removing material incentives, while still trying to convince me that I could own a business and make a profit.

Maybe you can be clearer. The only way I can understand the idea of removing material incentive is to make it effectively illegal for anyone to own anything. Do you envisage a society in which nothing is owned?

You cant eat it because your co-operative and you are still operating in a capitalist economy. Gratitude does not produce money. I thought that would have been very obvious.

So gratitude becomes edible in a socialist society? You'll have to explain that one to me, because no: it's not obvious.

Is everyone not "victims" (to use your word) of the predominant economic system? You said yourself that you had to take personal risks to establish your company. Risks other employees did not take.

I didn't have to take that risk; I chose to take it, as others choose not to. I weighed the risk and the reward, and decided that the risk was acceptable. Other people's personal calculus is different. I'm not sure why that implies that we're in a different social class.

You yourself, and indeed I, have to work and operate within the predominant economic logic of the system.

But that does not mean that I, or society in general, should not seek to understand the operations of a system which, whatever way you want to look at it, has had and continues to have massive problems. And to struggle to improve that.

Sure. My problem is with the presumption that (a) the only way to improve it is to throw it away and replace it with something that hasn't even been explained in any useful level of detail yet, and that (b) the replacement will of necessity have fewer problems.

Capitalism cannot work without money. If you are familiar with Maslow then it should be rather obvious that "material incentive" and "money" does not feature necessarily. And why would it when such incentives are rather new to human society.

OK, it's clear you're not going to spell out what actual incentives will exist to persuade people to work hard.

What about people who refuse to work? JRG hand-waved that issue away earlier with the vague assertion that everyone has an innate need to work, but out here in reality, there are people who, unless they have a strong incentive to do so, simply won't bother. How does that work? Does everyone else simply shrug and work harder, like good Boxers?

coolemon wrote: »

I presume you would go to your local shop and take your loaf of bread and that's it. You wouldn't have the material incentive to, say, hoard the bread because its free.

Yet again, I can't help but feel we're looking at a socio-economic system that's predicated on the assumption that scarcity simply won't happen.

There's a very distinct "assume a spherical chicken of uniform density" vibe about the proposed socialist future: the belief that if a simplistic model works in theory, then there's no imaginable reason why it can't be made to work in practice.

Jolly Red Giant

I am not going to re-enter this discussion as it has gone off on tangents in discussions with a socialist who is not a member of the Socialist Party and would not be fully versed with Socialist Party policy.

I do want to correct two misrepresentations of my previous comments.

oscarBravo wrote: »

The fault may lie with JRG, who tried to talk about removing material incentives, while still trying to convince me that I could own a business and make a profit.

Material incentives in capitalism have a limited impact on economic activity (primarily focussed on those engaged in speculation). Material incentives in a socialised economy would not be an issue because the basic material needs would be provided for all individuals. That is different from the issue of you owning a business and making a profit. Your ownership of your business would not materially impact on a democratically planned socialised economy and your motivation for owning and running your business is you business.

What about people who refuse to work? JRG hand-waved that issue away earlier with the vague assertion that everyone has an innate need to work, but out here in reality, there are people who, unless they have a strong incentive to do so, simply won't bother. How does that work? Does everyone else simply shrug and work harder, like good Boxers?

again a false representation of what I said - so to clarify - work in a capitalist economy cannot be equated with work in a socialised economy. The economic and social relationship between the worker and society is fundamentally altered. Capitalism alienates whole swathes of the population from society because of how a capitalist economy operates.

Under capitalism the only people who wouldn't bother to work are those who have so much money that there is no imperative to work. That is a completely different situation from an individual who is so alienated and disconnected from society that they cannot engage with society - unemployment is endemic for many in society and that has an impact on the ability of individuals to actually engage with work under capitalism. In a socialised economy the alienation is removed. Working class people have an economic, political and social interest in engaging with the economy and wider society. For some individuals who have been subjected to generational alienation it would take time to encourage and assist these individuals in engaging with society - but socialism would not penalise such individuals for the crimes of capitalism. The basic needs of individuals will be provided for and employment will be available for all in society.

A Primal Nut

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

In a socialised economy the alienation is removed.

How?

The basic needs of individuals will be provided for and employment will be available for all in society.

How?

Ukrainian farmers had full employment while they were starving during the 1930 famine; you could also argue African Americans had full employment in 1700s America. Indeed, unemployed people in Ireland have higher standards of living than the majority of people who actually have jobs around the world.

So really employment doesn't mean anything unless it improves the standards of living of the people who are working.

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And not barter.

And so what is your point?

What would 'remenants' of capitalism or bitcoin that might remain in a socialist economy prove or demonstrate?

Craiglist and barter is not taking over the world or bringing the whole capitalist system down. And there are reasons for that. Its utility and applicability is limited.

I'm assuming your economy will be a state-run command economy. If not, how do you propose to abolish money and the financial services sector?

Socialism and communism will necessarily require people, en masse, wanting it and aiming for it. It will require the permeation of a particular consciousness throughout society. A common goal and a common understanding.

It may require, perhaps, the organised (or even spontaneous) and widespread seizure of all means of production. And through this the 'freeing up' of all social resources and of the complete de-commodification of all produced material goods.

A consequence of this would be the obsolescence of money as the primary means of exchange.

That would probably be an ideal situation. But things are infinitely more complex than that and to actually realise that aim is beyond anyone's capability today. I couild probably say that anything like that would require it on perhaps a continental scale or, if it became a future situation due to depleted oil and energy resources, the de-globalisation and glocalisation of physical production.

A more pragmatic approach to at least partially realise those aims would be to obtain state power (through elections, coup, guerrilla war or whatever) and "free-up" and universalise that which is feasible. Free milk for school children, free health care, free education, free bread, free transport, and so on.

That would require nationalisation of course. This is generally the direction Leninists and the sort of 'Authoritarian' variants of 20th century 'socialism' (as declared by themselves) have taken.

The second approach, which while it has merits, I think has major problems. To the point calling it socialism is highly questionable. I call it state capitalism.

coolemon

Essien wrote: »

Cool. So if everyone wanted a Maybach, Bugatti or Bentley, this could be facilitated under your proposed system.

Correct?

Yes. Although waiting lists (which already exist irrespective of how much money you have) could be an intermediary solution to a sudden spike in demand. Working for such companies is highly prestigious. I would expect production to increase and demand to decline significantly in a hypothetical socialist society.

coolemon

A Primal Nut wrote: »

And who would produce the bread? It would require some kind of central planning which immediately means individuals have no freedom as they have to do whatever the government tells them to do in order for the system to work. Without force the system falls down and nobody bothers to produce anything.

Then if you have to hope the government or not corrupt and have the magical ability to anticipate people's needs all over the country at any point, as opposed to businesses filling the gaps, which has proved to be much more efficient.

For example, under the USSR the central planners decided Ukraine should export all it's food to Russia as it was felt Ukraine didn't need it. As some people say is great about Socialism, everyone had jobs. Didn't do them much good though; as 4 million people starved to death and many more killed for not complying.

Of course there is no way the Ukrainian people would accept voluntarily so in order for Socialism to work in that case the government had to implement it with an Iron Fist. The tyranny of the USSR wasn't by accident (as most socialists like to say) - it was required to stop the people from rebelling. Without the use of force and intimidation, the USSR wouldn't have lasted very long at all, because central planning failed miserably to provide even basic necessities for the ordinary people, especially outside Moscow.

Why anyone would want to put their fate in the hands of a bunch of central planners is beyond me.

I don't favour a system run through central planning. Perhaps for some situations but not all. I am a libertarian socialist.

PeadarCo

coolemon wrote: »

And not barter.


Socialism and communism will necessarily require people, en masse, wanting it and aiming for it. It will require the permeation of a particular consciousness throughout society. A common goal and a common understanding.

It may require, perhaps, the organised (or even spontaneous) and widespread seizure of all means of production. And through this the 'freeing up' of all social resources and of the complete de-commodification of all produced material goods.

What your asking is impossible. Anyone who has ever tried organise any group of people will realise people never ever agree completely on things. It can be hard to get 4/5 people to agree on a common goal even when working in a normal work situation never mind billions of people which is what you asking for.

Is the Socialist party a philosophy debating society living in a fantasy make believe world or an actual political party that tries to sort out real problems with solutions that might actually help people? Based on JRG and Coolmon I would conclude that the socialist party is the former.

coolemon

oscarBravo wrote: »

an ever greater percentage of people both part-own businesses (either in the private company sense that I do, or through publicly-traded shares) and sell their labour.

Where? - Ireland?

I very much doubt that.

Do you envisage a society in which nothing is owned?

What do you mean by own? In a stateless society owning something would be impossible. You might possess it though.

You'll have to explain that one to me, because no: it's not obvious. I didn't have to take that risk; I chose to take it, as others choose not to. I weighed the risk and the reward, and decided that the risk was acceptable.

And what reward was that?

I'm not sure why that implies that we're in a different social class.

Because, using Marxian class, you have a different economic relationship than an employee. If **** hits the fan, as I said, that actual relationship may become more apparent.

Your actual business may not 'feature' to the same extent the various contradictions identified by Marxism.

Like, for example, if your business requires low amounts of fixed capital and equipment, or where competition is not strong in your sector, then the dynamics and stresses of your business within a given economy will be quite different than something like - oh - a textile mill or a technology or car manufacturer.

Sure. My problem is with the presumption that (a) the only way to improve it is to throw it away and replace it with something that hasn't even been explained in any useful level of detail yet, and that (b) the replacement will of necessity have fewer problems. OK, it's clear you're not going to spell out what actual incentives will exist to persuade people to work hard.

The incentives are those outlined by Maslow. How a person achieves them would be somewhat different though.

What about people who refuse to work?

Work is as natural as taking a piss. Very few people ever choose not to work in any society.

JRG hand-waved that issue away earlier with the vague assertion that everyone has an innate need to work, but out here in reality, there are people who, unless they have a strong incentive to do so, simply won't bother. How does that work? Does everyone else simply shrug and work harder, like good Boxers?

There are various complex explanations why people 'don't work'. Alienation, depression, lack of social capital, low 'material incentives' for a given set of available opportunities, prevailing economic conditions. Lots of theories - lots of explanations and not all Marxist derived.

But, and I repeat, Maslow's theory is applicable to all societies -> including hunter gather societies (primitive communism).

Yet again, I can't help but feel we're looking at a socio-economic system that's predicated on the assumption that scarcity simply won't happen.

Its predicated on the belief that the restriction in the availability of something leads to social and prestige values being derived from it.

Equality of access to that which is produced largely removes those values and results primarily in use values remaining.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

coolemon

PeadarCo wrote: »

What your asking is impossible. Anyone who has ever tried organise any group of people will realise people never ever agree completely on things. It can be hard to get 4/5 people to agree on a common goal even when working in a normal work situation never mind billions of people which is what you asking for.

This has been one of the greatest failings of Marx's ideas in my opinion.

The sort of consciousness - a (revolutionary) proletarian class consciousness - has not emerged as expected.

Indeed it is one of the features of Leninism to 'adapt' Marx's ideas in this regard with the concept of a "Vanguard" and "advanced class consciousness". Ideas I don't particularly subscribe to.

That said, large scale 'common consciousness' is not something "never seen". Shared ideology and ideas is the foundation of social stability everywhere -> even when those ideas are patently false or stupid - like religion.