Socialist Party's policies

coolemon

Deleted User wrote: »

Could you explain one of these forms please, and how it might extend to everyone for all work?

From the top of my head, politics, academia and sport would contain high levels of competition outside of a monetary reward system. And not on an individual level either, but in terms of organising collective efforts in a competitive way.

Inter-state competition to maintain a competitive military advantage or defence capability can be seen to take place outside of an exclusively market driven system. But that is not to say that at a lower level there is no market competition between semi-state, state and private entities for state contracts. But at the state level, one cannot say that it is governed by a market system.

How would a hypothetical socialist society have non-capitalist competition that would apply to everyone?

I cannot say in any detail. I can point to, as I already did in this thread, to Maslow's hierarchy where monetary reward is not a specific feature.

Since removing the monetary and capitalist relations between people does not change that motivational hierarchy, the question is one of organisational forms and structures.

What organisational forms and relations between people can enable and allow forms of competition and innovation? That, assuming no cooperative socialist structures instead.

That is then the question. And it something I cannot answer in any detail. I said earlier that socialism requires the ingenuity of the mass of people.

I could speculate in a vague way. But socialism is not about me. It is about getting a broader mass of people to think about an alternative society based upon what we know.

And what we know is that monetary reward is not an intrinsic part of human motivation.

coolemon

coolemon wrote: »

From the top of my head, politics, academia and sport would contain high levels of competition outside of a monetary reward system. And not on an individual level either, but in terms of organising collective efforts in a competitive way.

....

The cynic in me sees the successful politician rewarded by another term (more money), the academic research rewarded by improved employment (more money) prospects as a result and the most competitive sports stars that aren't ably rewarded (with money) these days are becoming the minority.

In effect, their motives for competition can absolutely be judged to have components outside of monetary gain, but given that there does exist monetary gain as a result of competitiveness, it's difficult to disentangle accurately.

coolemon

Deleted User wrote: »

The cynic in me sees the successful politician rewarded by another term (more money), the academic research rewarded by improved employment (more money) prospects as a result and the most competitive sports stars that aren't ably rewarded (with money) these days are becoming the minority.

In effect, their motives for competition can absolutely be judged to have components outside of monetary gain, but given that there does exist monetary gain as a result of competitiveness, it's difficult to disentangle accurately.

You are picking examples selectively and ignoring large swathes of what exists and which contradict the claims of monetary rewards.

There are about 14 radical left wing organisations in Ireland. Apart from three or four of those, none of the others will have any hope of gaining political office or money from political office. Both within and between these groups you will have rivalries and levels of competition. And that's just radical left groups and not including the probably hundreds of non-funded civil society organisations throughout Ireland. It also excludes, for example, the Average Industrial Wage limits on SF representatives. To even suggest that money comes into it as an overriding factor is simply untrue.

As for academia and sport. Again, you want to ignore the high levels of competition between non-professional sport participants - who make up the massive majority of sporting activities. Only a very small amount of sports people will ever get paid. To reduce academia down to monetary competition is overly simplistic aswell.

It is not difficult to disentangle. Money is not an intrinsic human motivation. Maslow's hierarchy demonstrates that.

coolemon

coolemon wrote: »

You are picking examples selectively and ignoring large swathes of what exists and which contradict the claims of monetary rewards.

There are about 14 radical left wing organisations in Ireland. Apart from three or four of those, none of the others will have any hope of gaining political office or money from political office. Both within and between these groups you will have rivalries and levels of competition. And that's just radical left groups and not including the probably hundreds of non-funded civil society organisations throughout Ireland. It also excludes, for example, the Average Industrial Wage limits on SF representatives. To even suggest that money comes into it as an overriding factor is simply untrue.

As for academia and sport. Again, you want to ignore the high levels of competition between non-professional sport participants - who make up the massive majority of sporting activities. Only a very small amount of sports people will ever get paid. To reduce academia down to monetary competition is overly simplistic aswell.

It is not difficult to disentangle. Money is not an intrinsic human motivation. Maslow's hierarchy demonstrates that.

I've not reduced it whatsoever. I've noted that there also exists monetary reward and so to simply ascribe all the competition to non-monetary sources is somewhat (if not extremely) biased.

If you'd like to explain how you'd disentangle the monetary rewards from those scenarios, I'd be happy to hear of your (admittedly testable) model to do so.

coolemon

Deleted User wrote: »

If you'd like to explain how you'd disentangle the monetary rewards from those scenarios, I'd be happy to hear of your (admittedly testable) model to do so.

Since we are all forced to live within capitalist society -> to disentangle money is impossible. But attempting to do that is missing the entire point.

The ballyer single mother who spends a fortune for her daughter to compete at different levels in break dancing is hardly doing it for monetary reward. Infact she will be down on money.

The gizillions of amateur sports people and hobbyists who spend a fortune on equipment and trips to partake in amateur sports and competitive hobbies are hardly doing it for monetary reward. They will be down on money.

The radical leftist who devotes huge amounts of time and their own money to their fringe group is hardly doing it for monetary reward. (Monetary reward doesn't even enter my head in relation to this)

The irish republicans who are training and drilling around the country and risking imprisonment and death for "the cause" are not doing it for monetary reward.

Sure, they all need money. But that is avoiding the point. They need money because they are forced to need it.

Not because it is some how intrinsic to how society must be organised.

Okay, but I don't go to work to be the best ever mathematical computer programmer.

I don't see many builders going to work to build the best ever house.

Can't see many pest controllers going to work to be the best at vermin control.

I don't see etc etc etc.

Can you envision it?

coolemon

Deleted User wrote: »

Okay, but I don't go to work to be the best ever mathematical computer programmer.

I don't see many builders going to work to build the best ever house.

Can't see many pest controllers going to work to be the best at vermin control.

I don't see etc etc etc.

Can you envision it?

Yet, looking through a different lens, they are not doing it for money.

A builder or mathematical programmer might be doing it for a new car (status, prestige, self worth, and so on). That is, the very same reasons they might do it in a socialist society.

The problem, and task for society and socialists is to develop organisational structures within which people can innovate and relate to one another in a functioning system.

As was discussed earlier in the thread. The hundreds of years of feudalism and rigid ideological control limited and contained human potential. Capitalism "freed" people from previous ideological and organisational constraints allowing huge jumps in innovation.

As I said, similar organisational forms will have to be developed and thought about by socialists. But it is not a question of whether monetary reward is necessary or not. We know that it isn't.

Are people who are not socialists unable to think about it?

And your final statement is not true, we don't know that it isn't. I'm unsure how you can assert this?

coolemon

Deleted User wrote: »

Are people who are not socialists unable to think about it?

If you favour capitalism then you are favouring a system which inherently involves a logic of commodification.

But I was speaking from a general anti-capitalist position.

If we are to develop an alternative to capitalism then more people will need to want it and consequently think about it. That is where the socialist project is at.

Certain economic conditions might make the socialist message more conducive. Until then it is limited to a very small amount of people thinking about such an alternative.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Referring back to Maslow's hierarchy. At the basic level people are working to fulfil basic needs and economic security. Money itself is not those needs but rather the means to attain them. Money is therefore not the motivation in and of itself.

After this people are working for esteem and self actualisation. Money, again, is not the need itself but rather the means to attain them.

Money and capitalism shape the form and means to attain otherwise universal motivational needs. Self esteem and status in this society is related to material accumulation and wealth.

But it doesn't have to be so.

What is the process in a socialist society that leads from a job to a new car?

I don't know. I could say that through the freeing up of social resources that esteem and status would not be derived from having a car. No (or much less) social value would be attached by virtue of its non exclusivity.

Also, you seem to be saying that in a socialist society, some people will have more stuff (such as new cars) as well as more status, prestige, and self-worth than others. Isn't the point to make sure everyone is equal?

The task of communism has never been to make people equal. Equality is an impossibility.

Even the well known quote from Marx: "From each according to ability to each according to needs" - does not imply equality. People neither have the same needs nor abilities.

The point is to remove material wealth and accumulation as the means to attain that which motivates people.

coolemon

coolemon wrote: »

If you favour capitalism then you are favouring a system which inherently involves a logic of commodification.

But I was speaking from a general anti-capitalist position.

If we are to develop an alternative to capitalism then more people will need to want it and consequently think about it. That is where the socialist project is at.

Certain economic conditions might make the socialist message more conducive. Until then it is limited to a very small amount of people thinking about such an alternative.

I favour logic, and rationale.

Having studied Economics and mathematics to a high level, I feel that it's pretty condescending of you to tell me that unless I accept socialism I cannot understand it, nor think in it's terms. Seems very 'religion' & faith based in that regard.

I believed I was having a discourse with someone on the merits and pitfalls of socialism, of 'de-commodification'. However it feels a bit more preachy than discussion now.

I'll re-frame the question, given that the answer above is illogical.

Does one need to be a socialist in order to find the answer to this problem?

coolemon wrote:

The problem, and task for society and socialists is to develop organisational structures within which people can innovate and relate to one another in a functioning system.

If so, why?

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

We have been very limited in the past. There is perhaps more to build upon now. Socialism requires technological innovation. New organisational knowledge and practices have been developed even since the Soviet Union has gone due to changes in the forces of production.

Organisational possibilities are possible and "unlocked" but need to be discovered.

But socialism is not inevitable. So if it is not possible then it is not possible.

coolemon

coolemon wrote: »

Referring back to Maslow's hierarchy. At the basic level people are working to fulfil basic needs and economic security. Money itself is not those needs but rather the means to attain them. Money is therefore not the motivation in and of itself.

After this people are working for esteem and self actualisation. Money, again, is not the need itself but rather the means to attain them.

Money and capitalism shape the form and means to attain otherwise universal motivational needs. Self esteem and status in this society is related to material accumulation and wealth.

But it doesn't have to be so.

I agree with everything in this quote other than the bolded. You'll need to flesh this bit out.

coolemon

Deleted User wrote: »

Does one need to be a socialist in order to find the answer to this problem?

Maybe I didn't address your last question.

What problem are you talking about specifically?

If so, why?

Because (I assume) we are talking about an alternative mode of production. I haven't encountered any credible analytical framework to approach developing such an alternative other than Marxism. Marxism, I guess, poses the question and problem itself.

coolemon

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree with everything in this quote other than the bolded. You'll need to flesh this bit out.

Well historic societies demonstrate systems of primitive communism.

In that sense alone "it doesn't have to be so".

coolemon

coolemon wrote: »

Maybe I didn't address your last question.

What problem are you talking about specifically?
Because (I assume) we are talking about an alternative mode of production. I haven't encountered any credible analytical framework to approach developing such an alternative other than Marxism. Marxism, I guess, poses the question and problem itself.

This problem, and the suggestion that socialists are the only ones who can deliver answers to it.

coolemon wrote: »

...
The problem, and task for society and socialists is to develop organisational structures within which people can innovate and relate to one another in a functioning system.
....
As I said, similar organisational forms will have to be developed and thought about by socialists. But it is not a question of whether monetary reward is necessary or not. We know that it isn't.

____

coolemon wrote: »

Well historic societies demonstrate systems of primitive communism.

In that sense alone "it doesn't have to be so".

No, in that sense alone "It didn't need to be so".
We are intent on progressing as a species no?
Primitive Societies didn't have electricity, telephones etc...

coolemon

Deleted User wrote: »

We are intent on progressing as a species no?

Yes. But if you start from the proposition that it is impossible to get across the river then you will never build a bridge.

I am making inferences based upon history and the present to make the claim that "it does not have to be so". I am setting a problem to be solved through the statement.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

coolemon

Deleted User wrote: »

This problem, and the suggestion that socialists are the only ones who can deliver answers to it.

Who else is proposing a change to the mode of production only socialists?

The solution cannot be thought about by someone favouring capitalism, surely.

coolemon

coolemon wrote: »

Who else is proposing a change to the mode of production only socialists?

The solution cannot be thought about by someone favouring capitalism, surely.

Why not? That's a ridiculous assertion!

coolemon

coolemon wrote: »

Yes. But if you start from the proposition that it is impossible to get across the river then you will never build a bridge.

I am making inferences based upon history and the present to make the claim that "it does not have to be so". I am setting a problem to be solved through the statement.

This doesn't actually mean anything.

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There are many dimensions to this. Communism is not necessarily opposed to all hierarchies. There are hierarchies of beauty, intelligence, skill, abilities and so on. Nobody is suggesting "eliminating" these.

Not all tribal societies are the same. From various anthropological research forms of what could be called "primitive communism" have been found. Societies where no particular differences in material wealth have been found - and thus no systems of status deriving from them.

Esteem and status could be achieved in a socialist society presumably through that which is socially valued. Work itself, perhaps.

But I think the "freeing up" of material production would eliminate most social values attached to commodities and material objects. Status and such would then have to be achieved in other ways.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

coolemon

Deleted User wrote: »

Why not? That's a ridiculous assertion!

Why?

If one wanted a change in the mode of production then surely they wouldn't favour capitalism. It would be a contradiction.

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That is not the mode of production. That is the means of production.

I said earlier in the thread that capitalism has an inherent logic and social and class relations. They are very much the same as they were 150 years ago, despite improvements in technology.

coolemon

Deleted User wrote: »

This doesn't actually mean anything.

It does.

Instead of "attacking socialism" a proponent of an alternative mode of production would be combining their efforts to develop a new one.

But that is not what happens here because people are pro-capitalist.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In your job the means of production would be the physical equipment you use. Computers, broadband, the office, and so on. They produce nothing by themselves but require human labour.

In your job the forces of production are the combined means of production and labour (including specialist knowledge). Combined they "produce" and are therefore forces. Your job, in a sense, is an organisational unit of the forces of production.

The mode of production refers to the overarching social and economic system - capitalism. It has a generalised definition which distinguishes it from other modes of production. Of a particular and predominant class configuration. Of a particular economic logic deriving from this class configuration. And of a particular superstructure - laws, forms of state, and so on.

You really think that social and class relations are exactly the same today as they were in 1865?

I thought we had this discussion already?

Yes, I think they are very much the same.

I am assuming that since you ask the question you are thinking of the word "relations" differently to how I am. Of good or bad "relations" between classes? - that's not what I mean by the term.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The most obvious other mode of production being feudalism.

Depending on who you ask some socialists will say socialism has existed. JRG and the Socialist Party (and all other Leninist organisations) will say the USSR was one or other form of socialism until Stalin.

I don't agree.

I guess that an "embryonic" socialism could exist within capitalism in the same way forms of capitalism existed within feudalism. The difference though is that the overarching social superstructure - the laws, political and state structures, predominant ideological forms, predominant exchange and class relations of the society - will reflect the dominant mode of production rather than the embryonic or minor one.

Like the early forms of capitalism within feudalism, technology and productive forces are key to propelling and making the embryonic form conflict with how existing society is organised.

In some senses, I guess successful attempts at establishing classlessness in the early 20th century could be seen to be a form of socialism. But without certain pre-requisites - of certain organisational knowledge and technologies - such societies most likely would have developed capitalist class relations like the USSR did. Social relations and organisational forms being very much determined by technology.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Socialism can only come into being if social production conflicts with how the society is organised. For example mechanisation of agriculture would be incompatible with the landed serfdom of feudalism - where people are legally attached to the land. Farmers today use nowhere near as many farm labourers as were required in the 1700's. So, to maintain families of people attached to the land would be a significant hindrance. The farmer who can rid the farm labourers and serfdom and replace them with machines will have the productive and economic advantage. And that's what happened.

But with feudalism there existed an entire social superstructure that maintained the social order. Of manorialism.

Revolutions were required to overthrown the deeply embedded vested interests and power.

That said - there were various evolutionary examples of social transformation. The Spanish Civil War, in many respects, was a conflict of the agrarian landed classes against an emergent and growing urban proletariat and bourgeois industrial class. Franco won. Yet Spain still achieved economic transition.

An evolutionary road cannot be ruled out. But in many instances it will require the overthrow of the existing social superstructure. The laws, the state and so on.

As for the concept of the nation state. I don't know what would happen to it. It was probably one of the most underestimated part of Marx's analysis. I don't think he understood just how strong nationalism is in dividing a "global proletariat". He mainly focused on religion in this regard.

If abolishing the existing social, economic, and political structure is the first step, how do you know that socialism will emerge after everything is swept away? Why not lawless anarchy?

Because I think to "sweep" it away would require significant social organisation. It could be assumed that that social organisation would not collapse into lawless anarchy. Does it ever under such conditions?

It could develop into a new system of political and social oppression - like with the Russian Revolution.

Also, what will happen to things like customs and traditions? What about romantic love, marriage, family formation, and so on? Would those also be swept away as part of the social superstructure?

These are all extremely complicated issues. We can say that they are very much related to the mode of production - of how things are produced and of economic relations.

The decline of arranged marriage could be instructive. Was it a catastrophic and sudden shift to the more individualistic forms of choice we have now?

It was a pretty quick change. What was common sense no longer made any sense. The same with religiosity in Ireland. As soon as everyone had a TV in their house (as one factor) and saw other ideas the transition from a religious society was quite quick. Within one generation.

Change can be quite rapid. There are various inferences made about how a socialist society might change gender relations and so on but I cant recall my readings on them right now.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

CramCycle

What happens if those elected through the DPSE process can't agree on the best way forward?

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It doesn't make sense though, perhaps to a white collar manager of a trading company who is well off, sure it will make sense, but if you're on the poverty line and struggling to feed your family then it would make very little sense at all. And as for Individualism? That's just Randian nonsense, we are demonstrably a social species and we make the best progress when we do things together, this is logical. Individualism is just something that was dreamt up in order to allow those who are selfish and greedy to be such without feeling guilty about doing so.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

It doesn't make sense though, perhaps to a white collar manager of a trading company who is well off, sure it will make sense, but if you're on the poverty line and struggling to feed your family then it would make very little sense at all. And as for Individualism? That's just Randian nonsense, we are demonstrably a social species and we make the best progress when we do things together, this is logical. Individualism is just something that was dreamt up in order to allow those who are selfish and greedy to be such without feeling guilty about doing so.

Stalin and Mao did more to promote individualism than Rand ever did. As long as the needs of the individual are deemed to be more important than the needs of society such catastrophic societies can't emerge.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Stalin and Mao did more to promote individualism than Rand ever did. As long as the needs of the individual are deemed to be more important than the needs of society such catastrophic societies can't emerge.

Perhaps you can elaborate on why you think Stalin and Mao did more to promote individualism, I'd be interested to hear your opinion on that.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Why do you keep bringing up the likes of communist Vietnam? When most on the left here aspire more to the scandinavian model, which I've already stated. Would those people in Vietnam prefer laissez-faire Capitalism or is it more nuanced than what you promote? Would their ideal be again, more along the likes of say mine?

I don't mind business making a profit, I run one myself. However I also know that the capitalism you desire is predatory and the powerful will prey on the weak given chance and with no protection, that would surely happen. Even today wealth is getting more and more concentrated, Piketty's new book is about this exact thing, and that's with supposed regulations, what kind of a horror show would it be if that was stripped away?

I don't have hatred for the individual, that's something you are making up again, to fit your own narrative. I'm in favour of individual rights, I'm probably more liberal than you and most socialists are. However an individual is not MORE important that the society in which he exists, if he did then someones elses rights would be impinged. We are all equal. And to be frank, I have sympathy for any man, woman or child who suffered in a concentration camp, fascism is anathema to someone like myself, and it's as about as cheap an argument for individualism I've ever seen.

I stand by my statement, and it was Rand who promoted that insidious half baked philosophy and it is used in order to sidestep guilt. Just because you desire something does not mean you should have it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Godge

karma_ wrote: »

Why do you keep bringing up the likes of communist Vietnam? When most on the left here aspire more to the scandinavian model, which I've already stated.

The scandanavian model (which is currently in difficulty) is a form of capitalism, not socialism. If you want a socialist utopia, why one based on capitalism?

marienbad

karma_ wrote: »

Why do you keep bringing up the likes of communist Vietnam? When most on the left here aspire more to the scandinavian model, which I've already stated. Would those people in Vietnam prefer laissez-faire Capitalism or is it more nuanced than what you promote? Would their ideal be again, more along the likes of say mine?

I don't mind business making a profit, I run one myself. However I also know that the capitalism you desire is predatory and the powerful will prey on the weak given chance and with no protection, that would surely happen. Even today wealth is getting more and more concentrated, Piketty's new book is about this exact thing, and that's with supposed regulations, what kind of a horror show would it be if that was stripped away?

I don't have hatred for the individual, that's something you are making up again, to fit your own narrative. I'm in favour of individual rights, I'm probably more liberal than you and most socialists are. However an individual is not MORE important that the society in which he exists, if he did then someones elses rights would be impinged. We are all equal. And to be frank, I have sympathy for any man, woman or child who suffered in a concentration camp, fascism is anathema to someone like myself, and it's as about as cheap an argument for individualism I've ever seen.

I stand by my statement, and it was Rand who promoted that insidious half baked philosophy and it is used in order to sidestep guilt. Just because you desire something does not mean you should have it.

The Scandinavian model is capitalism tempered with a belief in a welfare state. We are not all advocating a cut throat libertarian version .

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That question is overly simplistic, as I say is their ideal more nuanced that that? Would a poll from Sweden be more beneficial, are Swedes happy with their system?

You've got it backwards, I'm afraid. Once you start arguing that the individual is less important than the collective, any meaningful notion of human rights disappears. If society matters more than the individual, one can easily justify shipping dissenters off to the gulag so as to protect society from their malign or disruptive influence -- which numerous socialist leaders did in practice, as soon as pesky individualist notions like free speech and individual rights had been eliminated.

And has the same not happened with Right-wing societies? It was you remember who brought up the holocaust. Pinochet? I'm not a fan or what Stalin did, few socialists are and let us not forget who his first targets were.

You seem to labor under the idea that Ayn Rand originated the "insidious half-baked" philosophy of individualism. In fact, individualism had its origins in the ancient world (Rand was a great admirer of Aristotle), but truly came into its own during the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, centuries before her time.

Rand could not have understood Aristotle, for she obviously had no concept of logic, let alone the nature of truth. And let us be blunt, the individualism you are talking about here is the one Rand promoted most recently, and this I know because we've been here before. It's egoism of the highest order. Do you admire Rand or not, a yes or no answer will do.

By the way, isn't it hypocritical of you to stand on a soapbox and promote individualism whilst at the same time criticising someone for the clothes they wear?

karma_

marienbad wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear is. And that is why I admire that model, in everything balance is essential.

marienbad

karma_ wrote: »

Permabear is. And that is why I admire that model, in everything balance is essential.

Sure he might be and I think I might have disagreed with his views on other threads , but this is a discussion that has basically come down to a socialist planned economy and variants thereof versus a capitalist economy and variants therof .

You and coolemon if I read your post correctly are advocating the Socialist planned model , is that correct ?

karma_

marienbad wrote: »

Sure he might be and I think I might have disagreed with his views on other threads , but this is a discussion that has basically come down to a socialist planned economy and variants thereof versus a capitalist economy and variants therof .

You and coolemon if I read your post correctly are advocating the Socialist planned model , is that correct ?

I can only speak for myself, but I've repeated 3 or 4 times now in this thread about my admiration for the Scandinavian model, only for that to be completely ignored. I'm not sure what I can do but print it in black and white here.

marienbad

karma_ wrote: »

I can only speak for myself, but I've repeated 3 or 4 times now in this thread about my admiration for the Scandinavian model, only for that to be completely ignored. I'm not sure what I can do but print it in black and white here.

So you believe capitalism is the way to go then ! So what have we been arguing about ?

karma_

marienbad wrote: »

So you believe capitalism is the way to go then ! So what have we been arguing about ?

No, I believe a balance is essential, theres nothing wrong with ethical capitalism mixed with strong socialist policies.

I'm here to argue against the cut-throat libertarian version.