Why Socialism?

[blue1995]

But what if power within a socialist society wasn't concentrated into the hands of a few?

Concentration of power isn't only possible within capitalism, it's a direct product of a competitive market. It's an arms race to see who can garner the most power over the economy and inevitably over civil and public life.

Oligarchical power relations aren't unique or necessary to socialism. Egalitarianism is really a prerequisite for functional socialism.

What do you think is going to happen to the power structure now? Do you think those guys are just going to go away? Who do you think is putting the socialist idea in everyone's head anyway? It's not an accident. Also what's Egalitarianism again? Been a long time since I learned those terms in high school.

Concentration of power isn't only a product of a competitive market, it is the most natural response to being human and the unfortunate condition we find ourselves in. This is why it exists in "free" countries. It's not ideal, not by a long shot, but it's the best thing going so far. Let's move forward not backward - socialism and communism are flip sides of the same coin. Proven failures.

 

[ebola?]

enter anarchism / libertarian socialism.

ebola

 

[Jabberwocky]

Who said anything about homogeneity?

Egalitarian society doesn't consist of everyone owning the same shirt, same house, same car, same level of income. I'll respond to your question with a question, why is it inherently "good" for a tiny percentage of a population to own and control the vast majority of it's property and economic, financial and political influence?

It's not inherently good- or bad. Property(/economic/financial) should be allocated to those who earn it (w/ a free market being the most efficient way to determine such allocations)
Insofar as 'political influence', that's a very vague term so I can only guess what you mean specifically, but the types of influence being exercised now, in the US, are completely improper and incompatible with freedom, fairness or the common interest.

enter anarchism / libertarian socialism.

ebola

I wish I could understand the differences between things like agorism, anarchism/anarcho capitalism, 'true' libertarianism, etc etc
It seems that anywhere I look, or anyone I ask, is unable to give concrete answers. Would love to be pointed in teh right direction to understand more, though

 

[Bardeaux]

What do you think is going to happen to the power structure now? Do you think those guys are just going to go away? Who do you think is putting the socialist idea in everyone's head anyway? It's not an accident. Also what's Egalitarianism again? Been a long time since I learned those terms in high school.

I'm not sure what you mean by asking "what is going to happen to the power structure now?". It's either going to remain in tact, implode on itself, or be dismantled by some other means.

Egalitarianism is a power structure in which authority and influence is more broadly allocated. Rather than being concentrated into the hands of a few who are detached from the reality that the majority are living in. By this reasoning, both capitalism and bureaucratic state "socialism" are incompatible with egalitarian ideals as both rely on a strong hierarchical system of authority.

Concentration of power isn't only a product of a competitive market, it is the most natural response to being human and the unfortunate condition we find ourselves in. This is why it exists in "free" countries. It's not ideal, not by a long shot, but it's the best thing going so far. Let's move forward not backward - socialism and communism are flip sides of the same coin. Proven failures.

This is debatable, obviously. In the Marxian tradition, socialism and communism are relatively interchangeable terms. It was the Bolsheviks in Russia, particularly Lenin who began using the "socialism is the lower stage, communism the final stage of revolution" concept. Before this, it was understood that real socialism could only come into fruition in a prosperous, post-capitalist society. With the technological and infrastructural means to allocate resources through a planned, socialist economy. Feudal Russia, China, Cuba etc were not prosperous post-capitalist societies. Capitalist relations hadn't barely even begun to take form in these countries yet. It didn't have to be a socialist revolution for these experiments to be a failure. If there were a bourgeois revolution in 1917 Russia instead, without any outside help from a developed, prosperous market, it would have been doomed to the same catastrophic chain of events that happened under the Soviets.

It's not inherently good- or bad. Property(/economic/financial) should be allocated to those who earn it (w/ a free market being the most efficient way to determine such allocations)

Right, but how does one earn $14 billion? Particularly, how do our wealthiest institutions "earn" such vast influence over society? Is selling $14 billion worth of something with very little material value to society, or even creating value out of literally nothing a just allocation of our resources? Is someone working 10 hours a day for minimum wage and actually contributing something tangible simply not "earning" a living?

These are the contradictions that need to be addressed.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Right, but how does one earn $14 billion? Particularly, how do our wealthiest institutions "earn" such vast influence over society? Is selling $14 billion worth of something with very little material value to society, or even creating value out of literally nothing a just allocation of our resources? Is someone working 10 hours a day for minimum wage and actually contributing something tangible simply not "earning" a living?

These are the contradictions that need to be addressed.

What are you referring to, specifically? I'm really unable to answer w/ anything relevant w/o knowing what I'm addressing here, but if your ultimate point is that payment should be based on time/effort and largely independent of skills, value-provided to society, etc, then I'd have to disagree with you. Someone who's, say, helping to pioneer Google Glass is worth more to society than the guy mowing his lawn, and rightly receives much higher compensation. Someone who makes money off taxpayers by, say, selling weaponry while using 'influence' to help ensure warfare to sell their wares, doesn't deserve the money that they receive. But w/o knowing what you're referring to by '$14B', or 'value out of literally nothing', I don't wanna just presume and miss your point.

 

[scureto1]

Born with money, pay someone to intelligently invest that money, profit, die with more money, repeat with children.

I think that's the simplest schema for my biggest beef with capitalism. People born into that caste contribute literally nothing by their works. Yes, investment is a good thing because it allows growth and keeps capital flowing through the economy, but is a system the rewards people for having money by giving them more money really a wise or fair way to allocate resources?

I take no issue whatsoever with certain career paths having large variations in earning potential - that just makes sense, based on rarity of the talent and the demand for that talent. But the disparities are much wider than they should be, and there is an entire (albeit very small) segment of the population who, if they choose, can remain disgustingly rich for generation after generation whether they choose to do productive work or not.

 

[Jabberwocky]

^How big of a problem is 'inherited money', though? I mean, practically-speaking, do you see that as being a real hinderance to those who did not inherit money? I ask because, while you say that's your biggest problem w/ capitalism, my understanding is that the majority of american millionaires are first-generation rich.

There's certainly something to be said about who your parents were, or where you were raised, but - *IMO* - this is far less about whatever someone may have been gifted in financial terms, and almost entirely about what they've learned from their parents/community. For example, consider the 'less-than-intelligent' folk who play the lottery, and win- these people can hardly be said to be better-off over the long term. I see the lack of proper upbringing as a far, far greater disparity than whether one does/doesn't get an inheritance.

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

There's certainly something to be said about who your parents were, or where you were raised, but - *IMO* - this is far less about whatever someone may have been gifted in financial terms, and almost entirely about what they've learned from their parents/community. For example, consider the 'less-than-intelligent' folk who play the lottery, and win- these people can hardly be said to be better-off over the long term. I see the lack of proper upbringing as a far, far greater disparity than whether one does/doesn't get an inheritance.

Except that family money tends to correlate with better schools, due to school funding being partially due to property taxes, and family money correlating with locations that provide more property taxes.

That's one of the failings of our current system.

 

[Bardeaux]

What are you referring to, specifically? I'm really unable to answer w/ anything relevant w/o knowing what I'm addressing here, but if your ultimate point is that payment should be based on time/effort and largely independent of skills, value-provided to society, etc, then I'd have to disagree with you. Someone who's, say, helping to pioneer Google Glass is worth more to society than the guy mowing his lawn, and rightly receives much higher compensation. Someone who makes money off taxpayers by, say, selling weaponry while using 'influence' to help ensure warfare to sell their wares, doesn't deserve the money that they receive. But w/o knowing what you're referring to by '$14B', or 'value out of literally nothing', I don't wanna just presume and miss your point.

The "$14 billion" number is functionally irrelevant, it's just an example. There are financial institutions that are worth much, much more. You talk about "earning" wealth as if we're talking someone who works their fingers to the bone or presents an extremely useful value to society. Sometimes this is the case, sure. But sometimes it isn't. Citigroup alone has almost $2trillion in total assets. This is an enormous stake in our economy, and with it comes tremendous political influence and tremendous dependence on their competency.

For example, just this past week, a bill passed through the house of representatives that was copied word for word from a bill written by Citigroup lobbyists. The bill (if it were to pass the senate and be signed into law) would deregulate the financial regulations put into place after the recession of 2008, caused by the shaky speculative activities used by Citigroup in the first place. This is political influence. Our wealthiest private institutions are literally writing the laws that govern them.

Now, how does one earn $2 trillion? That exceeds the GDP of most of the nations on earth. A cure for aids or a perpetual raw food creating machine wouldn't be worth $2 trillion. What indispensable service to society is Citigroup providing for us, and why should such economic power lie in one private institution opposed to being spread out among 10,000 institutions or entities? What are the benefits of such concentration and what are the cons of more broad allocation?

 

[Jabberwocky]

I have zero disagreement w/ what you're getting at there- many of these companies amass large amounts of revenues under the 'subsidized costs, privatized profits' model that's becoming oh-so-prevalent, and is not in keeping with capitalism.

 

[Bardeaux]

But the basic idea remains the same. With more resources available to one's disposal, one has more capacity to grow. And keep growing. With a laissez-fair approach to capitalism, the big fish will still swallow the little ones and monoliths and monopolies will still arise. The relationship to government will change, but the concept of perpetual growth and profit will remain the same.

 

[scureto1]

But the basic idea remains the same. With more resources available to one's disposal, one has more capacity to grow. And keep growing. With a laissez-fair approach to capitalism, the big fish will still swallow the little ones and monoliths and monopolies will still arise. The relationship to government will change, but the concept of perpetual growth and profit will remain the same.

This is what I was getting at with my previous post. I suspect that bmxxx is right about inherited money not being as big of a problem as I made it out to be in my post, but the general point I was making remains. Having money begets having more money in a lot of ways. I believe in the right of parents to give their children as many advantages as possible and certainly don't want to infringe on that right, but a system that calls itself a meritocracy should seek to try to level the playing field as much as possible. That's both fair AND profitable to the system because it helps ensure that fewer people's talents are wasted because they didn't get the right education, opportunities, or incentives.

 

[gimpan]

Capitalism seems to be doing just fine for the majority of the western world.

 

[Bardeaux]

No instability, crisis or mass disillusionment to note?

It's all good?

 

[blue1995]

But what if power within a socialist society wasn't concentrated into the hands of a few?

Concentration of power isn't only possible within capitalism, it's a direct product of a competitive market. It's an arms race to see who can garner the most power over the economy and inevitably over civil and public life.

Oligarchical power relations aren't unique or necessary to socialism. Egalitarianism is really a prerequisite for functional socialism.

Maybe I'm ignorant about how socialism is supposed to work in practice. It just seems so implausible to me. In a socialist society, what if I came up with a product that could be manufactured cheaply, sold at a low price in every Wal-Mart, and used by almost everyone in America. Say this product becomes hugely popular? In a capitalist society I could make a fortune, right? What about a socialist society? Where do my millions go, then? That's just one small example of how a person could end up with the short end of the stick if everything is equal. People are not all the same. We are not equal.

Are you telling me that the wealthiest, I mean the most obscenely rich and powerful people in the world - the royals, for example - are just going to step down and suddenly become the same as everyone else, driving a Prius and putting their kids in public schools? That's what I mean by the power structure. I don't mean the government, I mean the real POWER - where the real money is at. The current power structure was set in place by the Golden Rule -"he who has the gold, makes the rules" - and I find it highly unlikely these individuals, families, and others who have been so enriched by the capitalist system are going to give up their wealth and power to become and ordinary Joe in some new, experimental society. Surely they'll want a stake in things - they'll get it, too. And we're right back where we started, only now with MORE control over the individual.

Imagine working out the kinks moving from capitalism to socialism. It would be bloody as hell, for one thing. I just don't see how we could realistically go from a capitalist to a socialist society without forcing it on people, and when people are forced, they fight. I don't know what's being said out there about this - how is it supposed to "go down" so to speak? There would have to be huge military involvement, ousting of current leaders, dividing up the fine china in every household so everyone on the whole block is equal - how is this even realistic?

That's just how I see it.

 

[Bardeaux]

Maybe I'm ignorant about how socialism is supposed to work in practice. It just seems so implausible to me. In a socialist society, what if I came up with a product that could be manufactured cheaply, sold at a low price in every Wal-Mart, and used by almost everyone in America. Say this product becomes hugely popular? In a capitalist society I could make a fortune, right? What about a socialist society? Where do my millions go, then? That's just one small example of how a person could end up with the short end of the stick if everything is equal. People are not all the same. We are not equal.

Well, firstly there probably wouldn't be any Walmarts

Socialism is simply a cooperative and (ideally) non-hierarchical system of enterprise, economics and governance. How do you plan on making this product? If you plan on using cheap, exploitative labor then you probably won't find anyone willing to do this for you. With the elimination of scarcity (a very important factor in shifting from capitalistic economic relations to socialistic), you could very well create and distribute your product and do very well with it. Millions of dollars aren't really relevant anymore if dollars are rendered useless sheets of paper as goods and services are more freely available. It's important to remember that capitalism is necessary for the construction of material conditions required for a transition into socialism. These material conditions include technological progression and productive capabilities as a means to replace or minimize human labor, reduce scarcity, and provide the infrastructural capacity to deliver goods and services.

So yes, under socialism it would even be much easier for you to create and distribute your brilliant product. But you're not going to gain vast amounts of leverage over the rest of society in the process.

Are you telling me that the wealthiest, I mean the most obscenely rich and powerful people in the world - the royals, for example - are just going to step down and suddenly become the same as everyone else, driving a Prius and putting their kids in public schools? That's what I mean by the power structure. I don't mean the government, I mean the real POWER - where the real money is at. The current power structure was set in place by the Golden Rule -"he who has the gold, makes the rules" - and I find it highly unlikely these individuals, families, and others who have been so enriched by the capitalist system are going to give up their wealth and power to become and ordinary Joe in some new, experimental society. Surely they'll want a stake in things - they'll get it, too. And we're right back where we started, only now with MORE control over the individual.

If you're talking about Bolshevik style revolution of storming the gates and physically seizing assets from the rich, then you're probably right. However, this isn't 1917. Five years ago these institutions were about to collapse in on themselves anyway, and it was up to YOU and I to keep THEM afloat. Society is changing all the time. Production is becoming more efficient, domestic labor is becoming more expensive, and this debt based system of speculative finance is simply unsustainable. Social orders have come and gone throughout history, it's no stretch of the imagination to assume that this one will be done away with as well. Those in power have always had a hard time keeping their grasp on society as it changes against their favor.

Imagine working out the kinks moving from capitalism to socialism. It would be bloody as hell, for one thing. I just don't see how we could realistically go from a capitalist to a socialist society without forcing it on people, and when people are forced, they fight. I don't know what's being said out there about this - how is it supposed to "go down" so to speak? There would have to be huge military involvement, ousting of current leaders, dividing up the fine china in every household so everyone on the whole block is equal - how is this even realistic?

I imagine this is the exact conversation that took place between a bourgeois shop owner and a feudal land lord in 1792 France. Imagine a transition from a king to a parliament! Well, I guess that episode ended quite bloodily, but it's not always the case.

I believe you have a misguided idea of what socialism is. It's not everyone owning the same number of plates and forks. I'm a determinist in that I think there will have to be some sort of resistance and struggle for a socialist transition, but I also think that when the time comes for this transition, it's necessity will be very apparent. Capitalists will realize that they're just rearranging the deck chairs of the Titanic and that their time is coming to an end, not only because of the growing resistance to the system, but because their system of economic relations is simply not sustainable.

 

[blue1995]

There's probably a lot and then some that I don't know. It's just that, somehow, when I hear the word "socialism" all I can think about is the possibility for abuse of power over the individual and the family, and that goes against everything in me that identifies as an American and a human being.

 

[Bardeaux]

There's a great documentary about one particular factory in Argentina. The factory is shut down by the capitalist who owned it, it's stripped of most of it's productive materials and is left abandoned. The workers who lost their jobs at the factory decide to expropriate this abandoned factory and run it themselves as a very successful cooperative. This is socialism at the enterprise level. Granted, this isn't socialism at the societal level, but it's how an enterprise would run under a libertarian socialist construct. This factory was part of the larger "occupy" movement of the early 2000s in Latin America (not to be confused with the OWS movement).

The film is called La Toma (The Take). I recommend it to anyone who is interested in how a socialist enterprise actually works.

This sort of thing is happening all over Latin America, in Greece, in Spain. Have you heard of the Marinaleda commune in Spain?

 

[blue1995]

No I haven't really looked into the subject much. If it happened from the ground up, seems like it *would* be a more workable idea. I suppose I've always been more concerned with the change happening top-down, and that I wouldn't be likely to trust. Also, seems like almost anything can work on a small scale but, again, I'll have to reserve my opinion until I look into it a bit more...

*after reading on Marinaleda* -- no policia? Sign me up, ha. Interesting!

 

[Bardeaux]

The top down approach is what has been tried and failed. Why invest the same amount of power into revolutionary leaders that you are trying to get away from investing in capitalists? The results are inevitable. Socialism can only function efficiently if it's brought up from below, but it can only survive and expand if it reaches the top and takes over the political realm. I suggest watching the documentary, even for curiosity's sake. It's very interesting.