You're viewing a single thread.
It does work. Way more than any communist or socialist ideals
Well, we've never seen actual Marxist communism in practice, and Nordic countries seem to be doing pretty well with a bit of socialsm.
Nordic countries don’t have socialism. They have social democracy which is capitalism with a solid social safety net.
Marxism fails from the start because it’s entirely predicated on the state being a monopoly on violence to enforce societal norms. Marx postulated that after a proletarian revolution, the State would be an instrument of the proletariat, used to forcibly take State ownership of all means of production and shift to a socialist mode of operation, after which the role of the State will diminish until it becomes solely a tool of economic coordination and ceases to exist as a State in the traditional sense.
The problem with that is that it still relies on having people running the State, and you end up with the same kind of people that seek power. Only now you have given them absolute power over the entire means of production too.
And that's why Bakunin was right from the very beginning.
I don't see how that's a fair argument, as we've never seen real capitalism in practice.
What planet do you live on?
I think we're going to have to pick up at least some socialist/communist ideals as time goes on. AI and automation is going to force our hand at some point.
I think we should do so as a people, voluntarily.
Socialism has never truly been realized bc capitalists and tyrants ruin it every time SMH. Late stage capitalism is a terrible system and we should be doing everything we can to prevent them from consolidating power to make what little democracy we have left a full blown dictatorship.
Socialism can never be fully realized because it relies on giving the state total control over the entire means of production, and seizing that control through force.
So you either have democratic elections for the leaders of the State, and the common people are stupid and easily swayed by populism, which opens the door for leaders like Stalin or Mao to take power. Or you remove democracy and have it ruled by committee, which does the same thing.
But once you give the State absolute power, you’re fucked anyway.
Socialism doesn't rely on any state. The workers who actuallyedo labour in the means of production should own them. Because if "the state" (or rather:some bureaucrat) owns the means of production, you'd have the exact same property structure as in capitalism. More specifidally: state capitalism.
Stop believing that BS that the USSR was actually socialist after the Bolsheviks seized power. That was sirply state propaganda that both the Kremlin and Washington each used for their own narrative.
And there are more ways to have democracy than representative democracy. A decentralized democratic structure of communes with delegates instead of representatives would be way more democratic than any current "democracy" of the western world.
Socialism without a state should be the goal.
Socialism is the common/collective ownership of the means of production.
So, instead of a private unit deciding the rules, the collective decides the rules, yes?
If workers are a part of the collective, how do they decide how they're managed? There's a lot of answers, but thinking any of them through tends to show the dishonesty inherent to the ideology.
Maybe there's a strict system of rules to follow. Who decides on those rules, also the collective, right?
Maybe they can vote for certain rules or actions to take place. Who decides when to vote, what to vote for, or how the vote takes place? I guess the answer is still the collective, it has to be or else it isn't socialism, right?
That would be crazy if we did that for everything in our society right? Like if we just voted for absolutely everything, nothing would ever get done. At some point for certain things we'll just have to agree there's a correct answer we don't have to think about. There's certain decisions the elective body doesn't need to constantly make, so the collective would probably appoint elected officials to make decisions in certain categories of expertise.
So, the collective makes collective decisions about how the collective should operate. The collective is the governing body of everything in the collective. The collective IS the state.
If you dilute the definition of the state so much that it loses all its' characteristics, then anything can be a state, correct. If anything collective can be a state, then my gardening association is a state. Time to print ourown money and declare our garden sovereign territory. /s
My preferred definition of a state is the institution which pacifies class tensions with a monopoly on violence. Another definition I like is based on David Graeber and David Wengrow, in which a modern state combines power over people through violence (police and military), control of knowledge (bureaucracy) and persuation (people believe in states, therefore they work). Neither of these kinds of states are necessary to have a democratic society which makes decisions from the bottom up, instead of top-down.
You claim that thinking things through leads to "dishonesty inherent in the ideology". Yst, you fail to bring up any examples. Just because you lack creativity, doesn't mean you've disproven that basic democracy doesn't work. People wouldn't vote for "absolutely everything", but people who are affected by political decisions have a say in those decisions, proportional to how much they're affected. If I don't care about something, I won't vote on it. Easy as that.
And think of what you're advocating: The "private unit" you're describing is de facto a dictator. No one voted for my boss. Yet they can make any decision without hearing any of the workers out. It is an opt-out dictatorship, yes. But given how much I need that specific job, opting out could mean that I can't pay my rent to the appartment-dictator. Opting out of that tenancy dictatorship would mean that I don't have any shelter and probably get harrassed by cops.
I'm not sure that my ideology is the dishonest one, to be frank.
It's not that it's a collective, it's that it's a body that governs the collective. What I was describing were acts of governance. Since a state is a governing body, I'd say what I described fits that bill just fine. States having a monopoly on violence is a great observation, but it's not a necessary part of the definition.
The dishonesty I was referring to is that some socialists claim it refers to worker ownership, but is actually the state ownership of the means of production.
For the record, I have not advocated for anything here. I can tell you can tell I'm not a socialist and that's fine, but I'm also not a full on capitalist. I just think it's silly to suggest that socialism doesn't rely on any state. The theoretical conclusion of complete socialism is one governing collective having complete control over how basically everything functions (i.e. totalitarianism), while the theoretical conclusion of full capitalism is exclusive private control over absolutely everything, implying no governing state (i.e. actual anarchy).
Name one state in history which doesn't have a monopoly on violence. You can use your less specific definition, if you want. But then arguing with other people will probably get nowhere and/or be very confusing.
And since I don't know what you mean by state, please tell me what you mean by "governing body".
The dishonesty I was referring to is that some socialists claim it refers to worker ownership, but is actually the state ownership of the means of production.
I exclusively mean the workers ownership of the means of production. If there are no workers, because for example it's a patch of land (that doesn't require heavy farming), then the community who lives near that land and use it to feed themselves owns it. As soon as someone from the upper levels of some hierarchy latter (be it economic or bureaucratic) owns the means of production, I wouldn't call it socialism anymore.
The theoretical conclusion of complete socialism is one governing collective having complete control over how basically everything functions (i.e. totalitarianism), while the theoretical conclusion of full capitalism is exclusive private control over absolutely everything, implying no governing state (i.e. actual anarchy).
You're always implying that collective ownership somehow leads to top-down rule rather than bottom-up rule. How does that happen? If the whole society is based on bottom-up democratic decisions, where does it get authoritarian?
I also wholeheartedly disagree with your definition of "actual anarchy". Private ownership needs some kind of monopoly of violence to actually enforce the private ownership. Also: Where do you think private ownership came from? Do you think it naturally emerged from the first time humanity coordinated itself collectively, back when we were hunters and gatherers?
Also, private ownership of the means of production is actually a dictatorship over those means. Or rather: the workers who work in them. If I can tell everyone what to do, or they'll have to leave, then that's an opt-out dictatorship. That's clearly a hierarchy. How can you call that "actual anarchy"? Especially if people need the job or whatever is produced in that factory/workshop/farm to survive.
For further info, I suggest you to read this. It's very informative. If you prefer videos, there's this one.
Name one state in history which doesn’t have a monopoly on violence.
I wasn't giving you push back on this idea. I outright said it's a great observation. It just doesn't fit in the definition. It's like saying humans always eat, so that should be part of the definition. Obviously not, the definition of human doesn't include food, but that doesn't mean it's untrue humans eat food. These kinds of definitions are set up to contradict other ideas in dishonest ways, often a priori, and usually in a way that neglects established theory, which is really bad for meaningful discussion.
please tell me what you mean by “governing body”.
and entity that enforces rule of law
You’re always implying that collective ownership somehow leads to top-down rule rather than bottom-up rule. How does that happen? If the whole society is based on bottom-up democratic decisions, where does it get authoritarian?
This is interesting to me, because my play-by-play literally started out with worker rule and then explained step by step how they may or may not structure their organization. Although you missed it and implied the opposite, we actually agreed that it would be completely impractical for a collective of workers to vote on everything. Because of the impracticality of involving everyone on all decisions, some things have to be precompiled, rules and guides for how to do the job get created democratically. Eventually workers would see the need for someone to manage the logistics of operation, so manager positions get created.
And the thing is, I described this without suggesting it created a top-down hierarchy. I just described the decision making process and how these positions emerge, and you inferred the top-down structure yourself. Same goes for the authoritarian comment, I never said things go authoritarian, you inferred that when I suggested certain contexts involve certain rules of operation. If your bar for authoritarianism is any rules and regulation at all then I would say that yes there's need for authoritarianism, because there's need for rule. My bar for when it's authoritarian is higher than that though, and that's fine.
I also wholeheartedly disagree with your definition of “actual anarchy”.
Anarchy is the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, which conversely means that a capitalist advocates against the non-private means of production. If all means of production are completely privately controlled, then there is necessarily no state involvement, because as soon as it's introduced, there would be some means that are not privately owned.
Private ownership needs some kind of monopoly of violence to actually enforce the private ownership
lol you did the thing I said! Right in the same comment, oh my. And it's actually the reverse logic which is even worse. You claimed statehood means monopoly on violence, but here you're saying a monopoly on violence implies statehood. That's not the same thing! For real, this is actual application of logic: statehood -> monopoly on violence is not the same thing as monopoly on violence -> statehood. Two different statements, and you can't derive one from the other.
It's also not even true, if we ignore the theoretical voluntary cooperation in the hypothetical, in the case of no statehood property would be protected by private militia. One person's militia would have no reason to protect other property inherently, and no one else would be restricted by the state from doing the same.
Also: Where do you think private ownership came from? Do you think it naturally emerged from the first time humanity coordinated itself collectively, back when we were hunters and gatherers?
Private ownership stems from the human intuition of personal property. You can observe babies evolve a concept of ownership before they learn language. They understand what their space is, and it's incredibly common for babies to have a favorite toy they carry around. When you take it, they get upset, because it's theirs. These instincts don't go away, and people clearly evolve a natural concept of ownership. What people call or consider "theirs" has very little to do with their political ideas on ownership theory.
In reference to tribal people, it's a little silly to lump them all as one type of culture, but even still, they tend to have a lot of respect for personal boundaries and property, and this includes the means of production. When a tribal hunter takes home a hunt, they use it to provide for their family first and foremost, and unused excess is given to neighbors. This actually formed the basis of free market trade, when people realized if they adopted techniques to increase excess, I will have more to provide, and they can exchange their excess more readily with mine.
It just doesn't fit in the definition.
As stated in the other comment: You're missing the distinction between states and government.
and entity that enforces rule of law
But why is anything concerning the law outside of the governing body? Your definition doesn't seem complete.
Apart from details of the management body: I agree to your code of conduct for a democratically run. Cooperative. But didn't you imply that socialism automatically implies authoritarianism? Where does authoritarianism enter the picture, if the decisions are made bottom-up?
Anarchy is the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government.
Here we come to the definitions problem again. Anarchy is usually understood as the absence of any hierarchy. Economical hierarchy (I own something that you need to survive) is a form of hierarchy. Also, as "politics" describes anything concerning decision making in groups: Good luck having a society without political institutions. Even private corporations are political institutions. Why you exclude the economic sector from your exclusion of hierarchy, I also don't really know (well I'm guessing that it's convenient for your ideology, but that's just a guess).
If all means of production are completely privately controlled, then there is necessarily no state involvement, because as soon as it’s introduced, there would be some means that are not privately owned.
But without any state involement: How are the property relations maintained? Private armies? That would result in warlord-feudalism.
You can also view capitalism through class-relations: The owners of the MOP and the people they employ. The employed have to follow the orders of their private boss in order to survive. If you switch out the private property owning boss with a party bureaucrat and the class relations don't actually change, that's called state capitalism. That's how language works. Adding a word to another word can create a new term.
Two different statements, and you can’t derive one from the other.
Lol, are you seriously trying to formal-logic me? A monopoly on violence is a necessary feature of a state (state -> monopoly on violence). If the means of production are privately owned, class tensions between the people with private ownership of the means of production. If these tensions are not resolved (which the owners have no incentive to in capitalism), they would lose their property through the violence of the employed class... or they'd "invent" something that pacifies class tensions with a monopoly on violence. A state.
It’s also not even true, if we ignore the theoretical voluntary cooperation in the hypothetical, in the case of no statehood property would be protected by private militia. One person’s militia would have no reason to protect other property inherently, and no one else would be restricted by the state from doing the same.
That's what we had in the middle ages in Europe. It's called feudalism. Or warlord-ism. People with more economical power have more resources to fund a private army. And why would I refrain from overpowering my market rivals, if I have the means to do so?
Private ownership stems from the human intuition of personal property.
The jump from personal to private property is incredibly big. Native Americans didn't have any concept of absentee-ownership. Or of ownership of anything that other people need.
In reference to tribal people, it’s a little silly to lump them all as one type of culture, but even still, they tend to have a lot of respect for personal boundaries and property, and this includes the means of production. When a tribal hunter takes home a hunt, they use it to provide for their family first and foremost, and unused excess is given to neighbors.
Lol, you A) have no idea of antropology and B) are committing the same thing that you are claiming is silly. :D No, that's not how "a tribal hunter" generally behaves. Immediate return societies are overwhelmingly incredibly egalitarian (and don't really have the modern notion of one's family, which must come first). They share everything.
I agree to your code of conduct for a democratically run. Cooperative. But didn’t you imply that socialism automatically implies authoritarianism?
You inferred that, and I already directly answered this question. Good work requires organization, organization requires planning and logistics, rules are created and/or people appointed to take the job of handling logistics. I think it is implied that logistical managers to have authority over workers, is that where you inferring authoritarianism from? Again, I didn't say authoritarianism. If you think having any authority over anything strictly means authoritarianism, then that's where it falls.
Genuine question, when would you consider something authoritarian? That's where the answer to your question lies. I don't have much skin in this evaluation.
Anarchy is usually understood as the absence of any hierarchy.
This was in my definition. Anarchist thinkers tend to emphasize the lack of statehood more than the hierarchy thing though. Their primary goal is the abolishment of government. And yes, I did mean state and government when I said state and government. They advocate against the ruling organization itself, and they also want to take power away from the people who rule it.
But without any state involement: How are the property relations maintained? Private armies? That would result in warlord-feudalism.
I agree. Remember when I said I'm not an anarchist? We actually completely agree on the practical results of an anarchist society, that doesn't mean that anarchism doesn't refer to a lack of statehood.
I want you to think really hard about the analogy I gave you, so I'll type it out again. Humans eat food, it's necessary to life. Does that mean that the definition of "human" absolutely has to include "something that eats food"? No, it doesn't. That would mean that anything that eats food would be human. I can't stress enough how important and apt this analogy is.
I'm not exaggerating when I say this is the most important part of my previous comment. I will not respond to you anymore if you don't entertain this thought. Do you disagree that "something that eats food" should be part of the definition of human? If so, why should you include "something that has a monopoly on violence" to the definition of a state? You keep appealing to definitional problems, so let's work it out instead of ignoring an incredibly important point.
Yes it 100% does. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the fundamental cornerstone of transitioning from a capitalist society to a communist society in Marxist philosophy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat
It requires a revolution by the proletariat overthrowing the government and implementing a single party state rule with absolute power to forcibly seize the means of production, and firmly wield their monopoly on force to prevent counterrevolution.
There’s no arguing against that when talking about Marxist communism. It’s fundamentally integral to it.
You yourself explained why in reality it doesn't work that way. Bakunin was proven right by history. The state is a tool for pacifying class tensions with violence. That is Marx's own definition.
That a single party rule is necessary is fan fiction by Lenin. Even Marx himself disliked the vanguardist tendencies or the people calling themselves "Marxist".
Communism doesn't need Marx. A classless, moneyless society according to the paradime "To each according to their needs, from each according to their ability" (i.e.: communism) existed way before Marx, for example in indigenous American tribes. Socialism is described as the workers owning the means of production. If the state owns the MOP, the workers' property relations mean squat.
Marx additionally was proven wrong in his claim that the peasantry can't be a revolutionary class with the Catalonian revolution. Who introduced proper socialism without a state-aparatus.
That a single party rule is necessary is fan fiction by Lenin.
It's straight from Marx himself, not Lenin.
Socialism is described as the workers owning the means of production. If the state owns the MOP, the workers’ property relations mean squat.
And who is going to enforce the worker ownership of the means of production without a State having the final say?
Marx additionally was proven wrong in his claim that the peasantry can’t be a revolutionary class with the Catalonian revolution. Who introduced proper socialism without a state-aparatus.
Revolutionary Catalonia lasted less than 10 months as a socialist state before falling. Idk if you can say they successfully implemented proper socialism when they couldn't even make it through one year.
It's straight from Marx himself, not Lenin.
Sure it is. /s
And who is going to enforce the worker ownership of the means of production without a State having the final say?
The workers? Why do you think that majority rule over something needs to be enforced?
Revolutionary Catalonia lasted less than 10 months as a socialist state before falling. Idk if you can say they successfully implemented proper socialism when they couldn't even make it through one year.
Do you know, why it collapsed? Certainly not because they failed to implement socialism and rather went back to * checks notes * a fascist corporate regime.
Ah the classic, "not real socialism" defense.
To not see this defense brought forward you'd have to prevail on capitalists to not rabidly attack anyone to the left of wolf Blitzer, and so far nobody with that sort of money has been able or willing to show that sort of restraint.
Don’t argue any further, you can’t fix stupid.