At what point does a society become Socialist?

[Hooboy !!]

OK, so it seems no one wants to start the first thread in this forum, so I will...

I, along with a few others on this board, are constantly referring to certain political policies as being "socialist", which is then subsequently rejected by others. OK. So then, what is "socialist"?

The definition of "Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism)" unfortunately varies pretty dramatically, but there are some recurring themes. The most important is the collectivization of the "means of production". Social Democrats tend to be less inclined to collectivize everything and only target those industries that serve the community significantly, such as healthcare.

So, the question I have is primarily targeted at Social Democrats. It appears to me that they are somewhat unwilling to label themselves "Socialists", but still want to implement socialist policies.

How far would a society have to go before it crossed the line and became Socialist? How much of the "means of production" would need to be collectivized? Which "means of production"? Does it matter? What about the tax burden? Is the total tax burden an indicator as to whether or not a society is Socialist?

[Alethias]

Nice starter topic for the forum.

Socialism, at least to my understanding, means in a general way that the community controls both the means of economic production and the wealth that is produced. In other words, it repudiates individual ownership and replaces it with some form of community ownership. This can be either on a governmental level, or for example can be ownership by a collective or union.

Many modern societies mix socialism and capitalism. When you call a society socialist seems to vary from one individual to the next. Some people will call the USA socialist, and others will say it's capitalist. There is some governmental regulation of Industry, but by and large corporations and individuals own both the means of production and the wealth produced; it's just aspects of how they produce the wealth that are regulated. I think it would be a mischaracterization to call this country socialist.

I would say that if a rough majority of goods and service provided are only available through a collective or government, then the society is socialist.

I hope that makes sense. At least it is my opinion.

[Simen]

It would be helpful with examples of countries/societies you'd call socialist. Personally I don't have an opinion on this one way or the other, so I'll just sit and watch.

[dancer_rnb]

total tax burden was very high during Roman times, which would indicate tax rates have nothing to do with socialism per se.

[Hooboy !!]

First of all, let's start by not labeling existing societies. I think this will tend to derail the discussion. I would rather concentrate on the concept of "socialism" and how it is or is not being implemented.

Second, I am a little curious how the Roman example with its high tax rates, is not a form of socialism.

[psikeyhackr]

If people speak the same language it must be socialist to some degree.

<edit>

psik

[gargoyle]

Social Democratic nations are formed when the majority of the population recognizes that the common good is more important than the rights of the individual. This "realization" is usually triggered by crisis or persistent failures in the economy where the failure of market forces to solve peoples needs is readily apparent.

American examples include the depression of the 1930's - triggered by laissez faire policies, exacerbated by laissez faire policies and perceived political indifference of laissez faire politicians. The economic solution may have been the re militarization of WWII but the regulations and policies of the new deal transformed the american economy into a mixed economy.

In Canada medicare, railway and air service were not available at a reasonable level of service from "the market" because of great distances and small populations. The desire of the Canadian people to have these programs was reflected at the polls and these services were collectivized. As market forces were able to work in these industries they have been privatized (usually with a drop in service and quality as profits eat up resources that used to be used for services). Other times the populations realizes that they are better served as a whole by social democratic policies (like medicare) and despite market options choose politically to retain socialized services.

[Stinger]

First of all, let's start by not labeling existing societies. I think this will tend to derail the discussion. I would rather concentrate on the concept of "socialism" and how it is or is not being implemented.

Second, I am a little curious how the Roman example with its high tax rates, is not a form of socialism. Couldn't we say that pure capitalism has no government and no need for taxes and pure socialism has no private sector and no need for private ownership. The US economy is mixed. I think that taxes that support the government services are a form of socialism.

[Preno]

Socialist is a comparative concept (a country is more socialist or less socialist), and as for all comparative concepts, there are no 'points' at which a society 'becomes' socialist. There can be some arbitrary lines for each such measure, perhaps at 0.5, perhaps 0.8 or 0.95, but that's entirely up to you and it does not add much to the meaning of the word. I think a better question would be how can we measure the extent of socialism.

Since socialism is typically defined as 'ownership of the means of production', high tax rates in and of themselves are not a valid measure of the extent of socialism. Were the means of production collectively owned in Rome? No, they were not, so I don't see why it should be called socialist.

[Autonemesis]

The definition of "Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism)" unfortunately varies pretty dramatically, but there are some recurring themes. The most important is the collectivization of the "means of production".

Actually, it's the democratization of the means of production that distinguishes socialism. Collectivization can be accomplished without democratization, but that would not be socialism.

And must you always put the term "means of production" in quotes, as if it's somehow tentative or illegitimate jargon? Please.

[laughing dog]

Second, I am a little curious how the Roman example with its high tax rates, is not a form of socialism. Perhaps you could explain why you think any level of tax rates has anything to do with socialism.

[Worldtraveller]

I think pure capitalism would be just as bad, and just as unobtainable as pure socialism.

There is a very wide gray area in there that every country falls within.

I like to think that the ideal is capitalist with a strong sense of social responsibility. That is probably overly optimistic though, so a certain minimum amount of government enforced social concious is required.

If people didn't feel the need to buy Hummers and spend every last dime aquiring material goods, and were willing to provide at least a minimum to those who can't (and even the tiny minority who won't), we wouldn't need the gov to do it for us.

Cheers,
Lane

[general_koffi]

Is communism a form of socialism, an extreme variant of socialism, or something completely different?

[Hooboy !!]

NSocialism, at least to my understanding, means in a general way that the community controls both the means of economic production and the wealth that is produced.
I agree.

In other words, it repudiates individual ownership and replaces it with some form of community ownership. This can be either on a governmental level, or for example can be ownership by a collective or union.
Agreed. The key concept though in this statement is "ownership".

Here is what I take issue with the rest of your post....

Many modern societies mix socialism and capitalism.
Socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive. Capitalism is simply a means of managing assets/resources in a production environment. It is quite possible for a socialist society to utilize principles of capitalism to manage an industry or an entire economy.

There is some governmental regulation of Industry, but by and large corporations and individuals own both the means of production and the wealth produced; it's just aspects of how they produce the wealth that are regulated. I think it would be a mischaracterization to call this country socialist.
Again, the issue is with the word "own". The presence of regulations is not necessarily an indicator of ownership. To some extent, sure. But, regulations that simply prevent a tort are not exercises in control or ownership. It is only when a regulation begins to assert control over how much is produced, or what is produced, etc... that a reglation begins to take on the qualities of ownership. Another issue is with taxation and emminent domain, where ownership is placed in the balance.

I would say that if a rough majority of goods and service provided are only available through a collective or government, then the society is socialist.
So, how would you measure this?

[IsItJustMe]

This is a good thread.

I'd first like to say that Preno is definitely right: The point at which you decide a country is capitalist or socialist is basically arbitrary. Even in the most capitalist of countries, a few things, such as the post office, tend to be collectively owned. And even in the most socialist countries, such as Cuba, there are certain areas, such as some restaurants, which are still privately run.

Thus, to say a country is socialist is to say that most of the country's means of production are collectively owned. Most is a somewhat vague word.

Then, I would like to respond to General Koffi's question:

Communism has a couple of different meanings. It can refer to a political philosophy, in which case it usually, though not always, refers to Leninism. But when it is used to refer to a form of social organization, it means a form of organization in which the means of production are collectively owned AND no system of financial rewards and incentives exists for work.

This is in contrast to socialism, where a person may make more money for doing more work, or for doing more difficult work, or for doing better work, or simply because he or she is higher skilled, or fortunate enough to live in an area where things are more developed.

Finally, I would like to say this:

A system in which the means of production are overwhelmingly privately owned is capitalist. It may be more or less REGULATED capitalism, but fundamentally it is still capitalism, whether it is laissez faire capitalism or social democracy.

[Stinger]

Finally, I would like to say this:

A system in which the means of production are overwhelmingly privately owned is capitalist. It may be more or less REGULATED capitalism, but fundamentally it is still capitalism, whether it is laissez faire capitalism or social democracy. Okay. But the majority of large companies in the US are publically owned.

[Hooboy !!]

Thus, to say a country is socialist is to say that most of the country's means of production are collectively owned. Most is a somewhat vague word.
Agreed. It would be an incredibly difficult task to measure, in any significant or meaningful way, total production and how much of it is collectively controlled. What is "production" and what is "collectively owned"? So, there is certainly some fuzzy logic going to be required.

A system in which the means of production are overwhelmingly privately owned is capitalist. It may be more or less REGULATED capitalism, but fundamentally it is still capitalism, whether it is laissez faire capitalism or social democracy.
A couple of thoughts. First, privately owned does not necessarily mean that it is capitalism. Second, the word "overwhelmingly" eliminates the requirement for fuzzy logic.

[Alethias]

Again, the issue is with the word "own". The presence of regulations is not necessarily an indicator of ownership. To some extent, sure. But, regulations that simply prevent a tort are not exercises in control or ownership. It is only when a regulation begins to assert control over how much is produced, or what is produced, etc... that a reglation begins to take on the qualities of ownership. Another issue is with taxation and emminent domain, where ownership is placed in the balance. I agree.


So, how would you measure this?I don't know. I think it's a mostly arbitrary designation, and others have indicated. It's easier to talk about with examples. If I go to a private doctor and pay him for my medical care, that's not socialist. If I go to a doctor that himself receives a paycheck from the state, and I pay the state a fee for the Dr's services via either a flat fee for specific services rendered, or via taxes, that is socialist, at least in my understanding. I might even give the Dr's office a flat fee, but they are in that case doing the accounting for the state. If it is my general opinion that the majority of services that an country offers are of this nature I would call that socialist. I don't know how to measure it more specifically.

Note in my example that I'm not limiting my resources. I might be a billionaire or living in a shack for that matter. I understand that socialism doesn't necessarily limit the resources of the individual.

[IsItJustMe]

Okay. But the majority of large companies in the US are publically owned.

No. They're publicly TRADED. They're privately owned.

Private individuals own shares in the company. Most of the shares are not owned by people who work for the company, and none of the shares are held by, say, the government.

[IsItJustMe]

Agreed. It would be an incredibly difficult task to measure, in any significant or meaningful way, total production and how much of it is collectively controlled. What is "production" and what is "collectively owned"? So, there is certainly some fuzzy logic going to be required.

I really don't see either production or collectively owned as posing very serious difficulties. I think the biggest problem is what Preno said: Where do we make the cut off? 50%? 85%? 90%?

A couple of thoughts. First, privately owned does not necessarily mean that it is capitalism.

I agree with that, although I think it's the main way that we are going to distinguish between capitalism and socialism. On the other hand, previous systems in which the means of production were privately owned and so were the people who worked them were not capitalism, I agree.

Second, the word "overwhelmingly" eliminates the requirement for fuzzy logic.

Yeah, but the problem is it doesn't cover the middle case. Suppose we say that if the means of production are overwhelmingly privately owned then that's capitalism. And if the means of production are overwhelmingly collectively owned, that's socialism. So we've provided for the easy cases.

But now we have to deal with the situation where it's not overwhelmingly one way or the other... Say, 60/40 or 70/30. And of course here it's just a matter of how we want to use the language, basically.

[Hooboy !!]

Perhaps you could explain why you think any level of tax rates has anything to do with socialism.
OK

It boils down to the concept of "ownership".

What do you own? A car, a home, a retirement account, etc? Do you really own it though?

If you owned a home, the government can and will sieze your property for failure to pay property taxes. The goverment can garnish your wages to pay off a tax debt. So, it is a bit of a misconception to think that a person "owns" anything in our society. However, that same system that enables the government to sieze your property, also contains protections that allow you to retain possession of your property. So, what it is, is a social contract, an agreement between you and the community. Now, some will (and have) argued that the contract was not entered into freely and is therefore invalid. Perhaps. That is another discussion. The point is... ownership is granted at the pleasure of the community.

The purpose of taxation is to provide common services for the community, be it public safety, or streets, or whatever. Call it a "use fee" for the privilege of living in the community and benefiting from the community. The point is... public services require resources in order to provide them, or "means of production".

There are all kinds of "means of production". Most people equate the concept with things like equipment, or land, but it can also be human resources (labor), and natural resources (minerals). Each of these things can be substituted with a medium of exchange (money). The point is... it is not necessary for the government to actually own the equipment, or the land, or the minerals.

When taxation exceeds 50% of total production, then the government has a controlling interest in the means of production. They bascially "own" everything. Even if they do not possess or hold title to anything. Even if they do not exert influence over what is and what is not produced.

[toth8]

There are different forms of socialism. From communism, democratic socialism, social democracy, left anarchism, African socialism and Arab Ba'athism.

A social democrat would tolerate a regulated capitalist structure and not a laissez faire system. Look at Tony Blair in the UK or Zapareto in Spain as examples of social democrats in power.

[Hooboy !!]

Social Democratic nations are formed when the majority of the population recognizes that the common good is more important than the rights of the individual. This "realization" is usually triggered by crisis or persistent failures in the economy where the failure of market forces to solve peoples needs is readily apparent.
This was a really good statement, right up until the last few words.

You are correct. Socialism is the demotion of the individual below the community, in terms of precendent or prioritization. Most people want to point to capitalism as the antithesis of socialism, but that is wrong. Individualism is the antithesis of socialism.

There are a few reasons why socialists do not like capitalism and private property, but these are symptoms of the problem, not the problem its self.

At issue is social equity and equality; and sustainability.

In an environment where scarcity exists, the ongoing problem is: How are scarce resources distributed? When you refer to "market forces" what you are referring to is free market economics as a means of distributing resources. When you refer to "failure" you are referring to the intrinsic "haves" and "have nots" in a free market, which is considered "injustice" or inequitable or unequal.

Note: Social Democrats seek to preserve the free market insofar that the gap between the "haves" and the "have nots" does not become too great. This is really the only real difference between them and a Socialist.

[Aeron]

There are different forms of socialism. From communism, democratic socialism, social democracy, left anarchism, African socialism and Arab Ba'athism.

A social democrat would tolerate a regulated capitalist structure and not a laissez faire system. Look at Tony Blair in the UK or Zapareto in Spain as examples of social democrats in power.




I sometimes feel like people have forgotten the very simple lessons of Goldilocks and the 3 bears. :) I would be equally concerned about a purely socialist or capitalist society.

[IsItJustMe]

If you owned a home, the government can and will sieze your property for failure to pay property taxes. The goverment can garnish your wages to pay off a tax debt.

And if you own ANYTHING it can be taken from you in the right circumstances to satisfy a civil judgment or a fine, right?

The only thing any of that illustrates is that ownership is a limited right and always has been.

Ownership is a bundle of rights. There are cases where it is arguable whether the bundle of rights a person has in respect to a thing is large enough to constitute ownership or not. But that kind of problem is normal in social sciences and not really that big of a deal.

The analogy I've used before is this: It can be hard to tell where plains end and mountains begin. But that doesn't mean that Kansas is not plains or that Nepal is not mountainous.

So, it is a bit of a misconception to think that a person "owns" anything in our society.

Well, that's only true if you redefine ownership in absolute terms. But no society has ever used ownership in that way.

What you've proven is not that ownership doesn't exist, but rather that ownership is not absolute.

There are all kinds of "means of production". Most people equate the concept with things like equipment, or land, but it can also be human resources (labor), and natural resources (minerals). Each of these things can be substituted with a medium of exchange (money). The point is... it is not necessary for the government to actually own the equipment, or the land, or the minerals.

Except that the land, the equipment, and the minerals are what we mean by the means of production. Therefore, if a system is to be socialist, the land, the minerals and the equipment must be collectively owned... By the government or by the workers who work the land, use the equipment, or dig the minerals, etc.

That follows from the definition.

And in the definitions in use in political economy, people are not means of production and therefore need not be owned. By anyone.

Indeed, even in capitalism the ownership of people is, BY DEFINITION, the exception rather than the rule.

[IsItJustMe]

There are different forms of socialism. From communism, democratic socialism, social democracy, left anarchism, African socialism and Arab Ba'athism.

But here we may be confusing the different types of SOCIALISTS with different types of SOCIALISM. There are many people in the world who call themselves socialists and don't favor socialism. Ba'athists spring to mind. So far as I am aware, in modern Syria the means of production are basically privately owned.

So why would someone call themselves a socialist if they didn't favor socialism? The answer is that they wish to advance themselves politically by lying about what they stand for. Hardly unlooked for behavior from a politician, yes?

In particular, people like Saddam Hussein or the present Syrian government wish to claim that they stand for workers power, and therefore take some of the labels which historically have gone with the labor movement.

[Hooboy !!]

Well, that's only true if you redefine ownership in absolute terms. But no society has ever used ownership in that way.

What you've proven is not that ownership doesn't exist, but rather that ownership is not absolute.
Correct. Ownership is not absolute. That was my point. The only time ownership is absolute is when a person is entirely alone and has no threats to strip possession of the property.

Except that the land, the equipment, and the minerals are what we mean by the means of production. Therefore, if a system is to be socialist, the land, the minerals and the equipment must be collectively owned... By the government or by the workers who work the land, use the equipment, or dig the minerals, etc.
I disagree. The government does not have to hold title or possession to "own" something. There are other things that go along with the concept of "ownership" that have not been discussed too, such as decision making in how the property is to be used.

And in the definitions in use in political economy, people are not means of production and therefore need not be owned. By anyone.
There is a distinction between owning a person and owning their work. Personally, I do not see a distinction, but... there you have it.

[dancer_rnb]

OK


The purpose of taxation is to provide common services for the community, be it public safety, or streets, or whatever. Call it a "use fee" for the privilege of living in the community and benefiting from the community. The point is... public services require resources in order to provide them, or "means of production".


Not always. Taxation in times past has been a means for nobles to gain their wealth from
peasantry with very little returned in exchange.

[laughing dog]

In an environment where scarcity exists, the ongoing problem is: How are scarce resources distributed? When you refer to "market forces" what you are referring to is free market economics as a means of distributing resources. When you refer to "failure" you are referring to the intrinsic "haves" and "have nots" in a free market, which is considered "injustice" or inequitable or unequal. In the presence of externalities, free market forces may not be up to the task. This has been demonstrated countless times. And it has nothing to do with fairness or have nots.

[IsItJustMe]

I disagree. The government does not have to hold title or possession to "own" something. There are other things that go along with the concept of "ownership" that have not been discussed too, such as decision making in how the property is to be used.

Well... Now, let's consider this.

Restrictions on how property can be used are the ordinary function of government: You may not use that spear to poke it into that fellow's neck, and no I don't care that it is YOUR spear, right?

Now, if we were talking about central planning of the economy, that would be a different thing... If we were talking about the government telling a factory what to produce. But that is not done.

But in any case economically the most important aspect of this is beneficial ownership, i.e. ownership of the profits. And individuals continue to enjoy the profits of their means of production even in countries such as Sweden, although perhaps subject to higher taxes than in other countries. There are still rich people in Sweden.

[RED DAVE]

What's a thread on socialism without RED DAVE posting:

The Two Souls of Socialism - by Hal Draper

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/contemp/pamsetc/twosouls/twosouls.htm

RED DAVE

[Alethias]

What's a thread on socialism without RED DAVE posting:

The Two Souls of Socialism - by Hal Draper

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/contemp/pamsetc/twosouls/twosouls.htm

RED DAVEIf you consider this a valuable resource on understanding socialism, please also add it to the sticky PE&ST Academic Resources (http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=207014). It'll eventually get buried here, but that thread should remain stickied at the top of the page.

Thanks!

Alethias

[Loren Pechtel]

total tax burden was very high during Roman times, which would indicate tax rates have nothing to do with socialism per se.

You have to look at the *REAL* tax rate, not the stated rate.

Much of what happened back then was outside the tax system. The average person was a farmer who mostly ate what he grew--no tax.

[RED DAVE]

You have to look at the *REAL* tax rate, not the stated rate.

Much of what happened back then was outside the tax system. The average person was a farmer who mostly ate what he grew--no tax.What does this have to do with socialism, I wonder?

RED DAVE

[Hooboy !!]

Not always. Taxation in times past has been a means for nobles to gain their wealth from
peasantry with very little returned in exchange.
Assume a democratic society.

[Hooboy !!]

In the presence of externalities, free market forces may not be up to the task. This has been demonstrated countless times. And it has nothing to do with fairness or have nots.
What exernalities? Up to what task?

[Hooboy !!]

If we were talking about the government telling a factory what to produce. But that is not done.
Oh yes, it is indeed done. Examples: agriculture, aerospace, telecommunications, etc... Basically any subsidy is an example of the government exerting influence over production.

But in any case economically the most important aspect of this is beneficial ownership, i.e. ownership of the profits. And individuals continue to enjoy the profits of their means of production even in countries such as Sweden, although perhaps subject to higher taxes than in other countries. There are still rich people in Sweden.
How many people live in poverty in Sweden? (rhetorical)

There is a reason why the gap between the "rich" and the "poor" is narrow.

[Hooboy !!]

What's a thread on socialism without RED DAVE posting:
Answer: Boring.

I am curious about your thoughts on the concept of "ownership". Do you think that the government must hold title and possession of the means of production to necessarrily be socialist?

[laughing dog]

What exernalities? Up to what task? According to economic theory, market failure (i.e. when free markets do not generate a Pareto-efficient outcome) can occur in the presence of externalities. An externality is either a cost generated from an activity that is imposed on an unwilling 3rd party or a benefit that is received by an unintended 3rd party. In the former situation, the market participants are not bearing the full cost of their actions - and would do less (or charge more) if they did. Pollution is a typical example of a cost imposed on unwilling 3rd parties.

[IsItJustMe]

Oh yes, it is indeed done. Examples: agriculture, aerospace, telecommunications, etc... Basically any subsidy is an example of the government exerting influence over production.

Government is often a customer of business. That's true. But customers don't in any meaningful sense own the business the patronize, do they?

[Hooboy !!]

According to economic theory, market failure (i.e. when free markets do not generate a Pareto-efficient outcome) can occur in the presence of externalities. An externality is either a cost generated from an activity that is imposed on an unwilling 3rd party or a benefit that is received by an unintended 3rd party. In the former situation, the market participants are not bearing the full cost of their actions - and would do less (or charge more) if they did. Pollution is a typical example of a cost imposed on unwilling 3rd parties.
Ahhh. OK. I am not sure how the presence of mark controls, in order to neutralize or mitigate the effects of externalities in order to achieve "fairness" (I think this is where you are going with this), has anything to do with socialism however. Care to elaborate?

[Hooboy !!]

Government is often a customer of business. That's true. But customers don't in any meaningful sense own the business the patronize, do they?
Absolutely.

Ownership is more than simply holding title or possession, it also involves dictating how something is utilized.

[laughing dog]

Ahhh. OK. I am not sure how the presence of mark controls, in order to neutralize or mitigate the effects of externalities in order to achieve "fairness" (I think this is where you are going with this), has anything to do with socialism however. Care to elaborate? The point was and is that free markets do not always allocate scarce resources in an economically preferred manner.

[Hooboy !!]

The point was and is that free markets do not always allocate scarce resources in an economically preferred manner.
OK.

[Loren Pechtel]

What does this have to do with socialism, I wonder?

RED DAVE

The issue was a high tax rate being evidence of socialism. I'm pointing out it's a case of bad data.

[Hooboy !!]

The issue was a high tax rate being evidence of socialism. I'm pointing out it's a case of bad data.
That was kind of my point eariler too. It is very hard to measure all production.

[Autonemesis]

Correct. Ownership is not absolute. That was my point. The only time ownership is absolute is when a person is entirely alone and has no threats to strip possession of the property.

And in that situation, ownership is fairly meaningless. Ownership means something when the owner is able to prevent a non-owner from using or disposing of the property against his wishes, or is entitled to collect damages when that happens. Without non-owners, there is no owner. In other words, ownership is a social relationship.

[Hooboy !!]

And in that situation, ownership is fairly meaningless. Ownership means something when the owner is able to prevent a non-owner from using or disposing of the property against his wishes, or is entitled to collect damages when that happens. Without non-owners, there is no owner. In other words, ownership is a social relationship.
Not meaningless. I agree that it is a social relationship, but this does not make the concept meaningless. Ownership is an enabler, a means to achieve ends. Private property is therefore an enabler of self-determination (individualism), collective property is an enabler of the group (socialism).

This is why private property is mutually exclusive of socialism and for me is one way to recognize when a society makes the transition to socialist.

As long as members of the society feel restrained from violating a person's right to own property, and protect that right, then it is not a socialist society. Once the community begins to feel justified in seizing private property for the "good" of the community (emminent domain, RICO, HOA's) then the community is trending towards socialism.

[Gracchus]

Okay. But the majority of large companies in the US are publically owned.

Which is to say they are owned by a handful of the super-rich.

"Corporation, n., An ingenious device for obtaining profit without individual responsibility."

- Ambrose Bierce

:wave:

[Stinger]

Which is to say they are owned by a handful of the super-rich.

"Corporation, n., An ingenious device for obtaining profit without individual responsibility."

- Ambrose Bierce

:wave: Super rich? Maybe I'm super rich compared to a homeless man or something. I'll tell you that my wife dosn't think that we are super rich!! I read somewhere that about 50% of America owns stock of some kind.

[coloradoatheist]

I also think the definition is arbitrary. But one I would say is more quantifiable is when govt spending approaches 50% of GDP.

Mike

[RED DAVE]

I'm tired of all this shilly-shallying, wishy-washing and outright lying by us socialists. It's time to fess up. I've posted this before in different contexts, but the point has to be made to all you stupids out there.

There are secret socialist documents, printed only in limited editions, using the blood of socialist martyrs instead of ink, using the skin of murdered plutocrats, giving the precise collectivist, leftist principles with regard to what socialism will be like and when a is society socialist.

The answer is: when it looks like this.

On the day after the revolution, everyone: men, women and children, will voluntarity and unselfishly remove all their clothes in public. This done, all of us will be issued sandals made from recycled automobile tires and a potato sack with three holes in it.

This will suffice.

In the colder climates, a pair of socks made from used condoms will be issued to all, plus a recycled plastic garbage bag.

This will suffice.

Once clothing distribution is complete, the Internationale will be sung in Indoeuropean, Sumerian and Esperanto.

This will suffice.

Then everyone will go home to their packing crates. Sexual intercourse will be permitted.

This will suffice.

In the morning, unselfish labor will commence. Since electricity has been banned as harmful to the environment, and it is selfish to exploit our animal brethren, all persons will perform all work by hand.

This will suffice.

Since everyone has to vote together on everything, approximately 12 hours in every day will be devoted to voting. When coupled with ten hours of work (All hail the Revolution for decreasing our hours to only ten), this leaves 2 hours for sleep, eating (brown rice and raw vegetables) and recreation (meditating on anthills), all of which will be done unselfishly.

This will suffice.RED DAVE

[Metaphor]

I also think the definition is arbitrary. But one I would say is more quantifiable is when govt spending approaches 50% of GDP.

Mike

I don't think the amount of government spending or taxes collected is a sufficient marker of socialism. It is the ideology behind the collection and how the collected money is actually spent.

So I don't think you can look at any one marker, or even a collection of markers, to make the 'socialist' vs 'not socialist' distinction. Just as 'pure' capitalism has never existed and never will.

[coloradoatheist]

I don't think the amount of government spending or taxes collected is a sufficient marker of socialism. It is the ideology behind the collection and how the collected money is actually spent.

So I don't think you can look at any one marker, or even a collection of markers, to make the 'socialist' vs 'not socialist' distinction. Just as 'pure' capitalism has never existed and never will.

Agree with you there..heritage.org produces an economic freedom index that has a better composite score.


Dave, the problem is that your socialism doesn't have a plan and it never did. All it says is "A Great Miracle happens here" and one that's bigger than parting the Red Sea.

Mike

[Bonniedundee]

To a socialist it would be when no exploitation takes place, it would obviously have nothing to do with things like how much GDP is gov't spending, because modern states are part of the ruling and exploiting classes, even the most authoritarian stalinist could tell you that.

[Loren Pechtel]

To a socialist it would be when no exploitation takes place, it would obviously have nothing to do with things like how much GDP is gov't spending, because modern states are part of the ruling and exploiting classes, even the most authoritarian stalinist could tell you that.

Describe what such a society would look like. I have yet to see a description that would work.

What I have seen again and again is people who don't recognize hidden benefits the employee receives.

They also do not account for the fact that much of the surplus produced by factories needs to be reinvested rather than distributed.

Both of these things are often claimed to be exploitation when they aren't.

[Bonniedundee]

Describe what such a society would look like. I have yet to see a description that would work.
Was this part of the question in the OP?

A socialist society would be a voluntary or free market society within the limits of whatever libertarian(ie in line with self-ownership.) property rights are chosen by the local community.

[coloradoatheist]

Was this part of the question in the OP?

A socialist society would be a voluntary or free market society within the limits of whatever libertarian(ie in line with self-ownership.) property rights are chosen by the local community.

That's what we have here now.

Mike

[Bonniedundee]

That's what we have here now.No we don't, not at all.

We have nothing like free markets(and this includes doing anything that is non-invasive like drugs or prostitution.) and we certainly don't have legitimate lockean, geoist, mutualist, syndaclist or communist property rights systems chosen by local common law or the local community.

There has been and there is massive state intervention in our system that violates free markets and taints proeprty rights and allows for plenty of exploitation and privilege.

[coloradoatheist]

No we don't, not at all.

We have nothing like free markets(and this includes doing anything that is non-invasive like drugs or prostitution.) and we certainly don't have legitimate lockean, geoist, mutualist, syndaclist or communist property rights systems chosen by local common law or the local community.

There has been and there is massive state intervention in our system that violates free markets and taints proeprty rights and allows for plenty of exploitation and privilege.

Many people aren't arguing for more free markets but more restricted even though some parties agree with legalized prostitution and drugs but that group agrees with min wage laws. Property laws aren't going to change soon.


Mike

[Bonniedundee]

Many people aren't arguing for more free markets but more restricted even though some parties agree with legalized prostitution and drugs but that group agrees with min wage laws. Property laws aren't going to change soon.I realise this, I was just painting a hypocthetical of an exploitationless society.

The problem is that there is a distorted image of markets and the state involvement in the economy, most people seem to think that without state intervention a free market will create robber baron capitalism so the neutral state intervenes to solve problems, this is a very false picture.
The state intervened to create robber baron capitalism and it intervened more not to create competition but to further cartelise the economy.

[untermensche]

How far would a society have to go before it crossed the line and became Socialist? How much of the "means of production" would need to be collectivized? Which "means of production"? Does it matter? What about the tax burden? Is the total tax burden an indicator as to whether or not a society is Socialist?
The means of production are already collectivized, just collectivized in a manner that does not help laborers keep the fruits of their labor very well.

No additional collectivization is neccessary.

[coloradoatheist]

I realise this, I was just painting a hypocthetical of an exploitationless society.

The problem is that there is a distorted image of markets and the state involvement in the economy, most people seem to think that without state intervention a free market will create robber baron capitalism so the neutral state intervenes to solve problems, this is a very false picture.
The state intervened to create robber baron capitalism and it intervened more not to create competition but to further cartelise the economy.

Agree here. Monopolies only happen because of govt intervention. However your solution goes the wrong direction and will set the nation back a thousand years or more.


Mike

[Bonniedundee]

Agree here. Monopolies only happen because of govt intervention. However your solution goes the wrong direction and will set the nation back a thousand years or more.
Mike

My solution is the free market solution.

So you are saying it is better to have a little intervention for "progress" rather than completely free markets and less "progress"?

[spamandham]

OK. So then, what is "socialist"?

It's whatever someone else does if you don't like it, or it's what you do if you do like it.

But seriously, I would say the mere existence of a state, is socialist, since it collectivizes something. It's a matter of degree, not substance.

[coloradoatheist]

My solution is the free market solution.

So you are saying it is better to have a little intervention for "progress" rather than completely free markets and less "progress"?

We argue on what is a free market. There can still be a free market even with govt intervention. It becomes partially unfree with certain conditions.


Mike

[Bonniedundee]

We argue on what is a free market. There can still be a free market even with govt intervention. It becomes partially unfree with certain conditions
A free market means absolutely no coercion, there can be no free market with state intervention by definition it is no longer free. You cannot have it both ways, either you are like me and embrace a completely voluntary society or you allow some intervention.

[Bonniedundee]

But seriously, I would say the mere existence of a state, is socialist, since it collectivizes something. It's a matter of degree, not substance.
The state has nothing to do with socialism.

Most anarchists consider themselves socialists and have done from the early years of the socialist movement.

Socialism means simply the ending of economic exploitation or, what is the same, that everyone should have complete ownership and control over the fruits of his labour.
Things like states, nationalised healthcare etc have little to do with this and have been recognised as such for ever by socialists.

Social democrats are not part of the socialist movement nor have been since the first world war when they began to adopt this kind of program.

[coloradoatheist]

The state has nothing to do with socialism.

Most anarchists consider themselves socialists and have done from the early years of the socialist movement.

Socialism means simply the ending of economic exploitation or, what is the same, that everyone should have complete ownership and control over the fruits of his labour.
Things like states, nationalised healthcare etc have little to do with this and have been recognised as such for ever by socialists.

Social democrats are not part of the socialist movement nor have been since the first world war when they began to adopt this kind of program.

However this is where it doesn't become free. It's voluntary for me to decide to work for a corporation even if they take the fruits of my labor.

A free market is where different parties can agree to exchange services and goods.

Mike

[Bonniedundee]

However this is where it doesn't become free. It's voluntary for me to decide to work for a corporation even if they take the fruits of my labor.
This is absurd
The corporation relies on the state, which violates free markets.

You could make the statement that slaves voluntarily agree to work by not risking running away.

Would you refere to a slave economy as free market?

A free market is where different parties can agree to exchange services and goods.
No, it is where different parties partake in voluntary exchanges or actions within a system of legitimate property rights and in the absence of institutionalised coercion.
Our system violates both of these last conditions.

[gargoyle]

If you consider this a valuable resource on understanding socialism, please also add it to the sticky PE&ST Academic Resources (http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=207014). It'll eventually get buried here, but that thread should remain stickied at the top of the page.

Thanks!

Alethias

I think he considers it a valuable resource. Don't worry about it getting buried - I have a feeling it will come up again somewhere soon...

[coloradoatheist]

This is absurd
The corporation relies on the state, which violates free markets.

You could make the statement that slaves voluntarily agree to work by not risking running away.

Would you refere to a slave economy as free market?


All it does is define a mechanism where people can voluntarily get together to pool money and to act with other people. It isn't slavery because no one is threatening harm if you don't do it. You don't have to work for IBM and you don't have to buy from IBM. However in your system what is going to prevent people from saying he pay me $10/hr to mow lawns?



No, it is where different parties partake in voluntary exchanges or actions within a system of legitimate property rights and in the absence of institutionalised coercion.
Our system violates both of these last conditions.

Until humans no longer need to eat, drink or have shelter there will always be an exchange of goods and services.

Mike

[Bonniedundee]

All it does is define a mechanism where people can voluntarily get together to pool money and to act with other people. It isn't slavery because no one is threatening harm if you don't do it. You don't have to work for IBM and you don't have to buy from IBM. However in your system what is going to prevent people from saying he pay me $10/hr to mow lawns?No this isn't what I meant, I meant that as you seem to think you can free market within coercive parameters, then why stop with the pararemters you like?
Couldn't you call the ancient slave economy a free market because there was voluntary exchanges within the restrictions created by the state?


Until humans no longer need to eat, drink or have shelter there will always be an exchange of goods and services.Right. I never said they wouldn't, I'm the one defending free markets here.

You simply come off as being pro-intervention while claiming to be free market.

A free market means there is no coercion by the state and there are legitimate property rights, if these are violated it is not a free market, even if you are allowed to trade semi-freely within some parameters.

[coloradoatheist]

No this isn't what I meant, I meant that as you seem to think you can free market within coercive parameters, then why stop with the pararemters you like?
Couldn't you call the ancient slave economy a free market because there was voluntary exchanges within the restrictions created by the state?



So a slave could tell his master to shove it the same way I can tell my boss to shove it?


Right. I never said they wouldn't, I'm the one defending free markets here.

You simply come off as being pro-intervention while claiming to be free market.

A free market means there is no coercion by the state and there are legitimate property rights, if these are violated it is not a free market, even if you are allowed to trade semi-freely within some parameters.

[/quote]

And that last sentence is a fairy tale, might as well wish for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.


Mike

[Bonniedundee]

So a slave could tell his master to shove it the same way I can tell my boss to shove it?That wasn't my point. I was just commenting on your very strange idea that just because the gov't intervenes in many, many ways to make the economy anything but a free market, somehow it is still a free market because we have a limited amount of freedom, well so does a slave, it is all a matter of degree.





And that last sentence is a fairy tale, might as well wish for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.


Mike
It's not a fairy tale, it is a free market. I can accept that you feel a completely free market is impossible, but to claim your favoured statist economy is a free market is very dishonest.

Either you can believe in your corporate, statist economy with its "progress" or you can believe in free markets, you cannot have both.

So make your choice and if it is the first choice, have the grace to admit you do not support completely free makrets instead of this absurd point you seem to be trying to make above.

[coloradoatheist]

That wasn't my point. I was just commenting on your very strange idea that just because the gov't intervenes in many, many ways to make the economy anything but a free market, somehow it is still a free market because we have a limited amount of freedom, well so does a slave, it is all a matter of degree.




It's not a fairy tale, it is a free market. I can accept that you feel a completely free market is impossible, but to claim your favoured statist economy is a free market is very dishonest.

It's not 100% free, but on a continuim. If there's something that's not complete free doesn't mean it's not free. Being able to form a partnership or a corporation is expanding freedom.


Mike

[Bonniedundee]

It's not 100% free, but on a continuim. If there's something that's not complete free doesn't mean it's not free. Being able to form a partnership or a corporation is expanding freedom.
I realise of course its a continuim, but the any state interference such as special privileges to corporations is not an expansion but a decrease in freedom, because it simply shifts costs and risks around to others.

If you want to form a corporation get together in free association don't call on the state to create a legal corporate personhood for you.
If you wanted limited liability take out insurance don't call on the state to grant you this.

[coloradoatheist]

I realise of course its a continuim, but the any state interference such as special privileges to corporations is not an expansion but a decrease in freedom, because it simply shifts costs and risks around to others.

If you want to form a corporation get together in free association don't call on the state to create a legal corporate personhood for you.
If you wanted limited liability take out insurance don't call on the state to grant you this.



But that's all a corporation is a legally defined freedom of association. It's the same as the definition of marriage, you can say you are married without the state recognizing it but it is the state recognizing that partnership.

Mike

[Bonniedundee]

But that's all a corporation is a legally defined freedom of association. It's the same as the definition of marriage, you can say you are married without the state recognizing it but it is the state recognizing that partnership.
The state has no right to do either. It is not pro but anti freedom of association, it is creating an artificial entity.

And of course the state gives extra legal privileges to corporations, which again is anti free market and anti freedom of association as it just shifts around risks and costs.

If you want to create a corporation fine, pool your capital, if you want limited liability fine, take out insurance, this is freedom of association, the stating doing either is anti freedom of association.

[coloradoatheist]

Under a non-state solution liability wouldn't exist either.


Mike

[coloradoatheist]

The state has no right to do either. It is not pro but anti freedom of association, it is creating an artificial entity.

And of course the state gives extra legal privileges to corporations, which again is anti free market and anti freedom of association as it just shifts around risks and costs.

If you want to create a corporation fine, pool your capital, if you want limited liability fine, take out insurance, this is freedom of association, the stating doing either is anti freedom of association.


It's freedom of assosciation because you can volunatarily act with a corporation, buying stock, being employed, and purchasing from one.

Mike

[Bonniedundee]

It's freedom of assosciation because you can volunatarily act with a corporation, buying stock, being employed, and purchasing from one.This doesn't make any sense. You are saying it is freedom of association because the state has coercively created artificial agencies, violating plenty of voluntary associations and voluntary choice, that we can now have the pleasure of voluntarily interacting with.

[Bonniedundee]

Under a non-state solution liability wouldn't exist either.I don't understand what you mean?

[coloradoatheist]

I don't understand what you mean?

Liability is a societal created invention to solve disputes between people. The state intervenes to look at the argument between people to decide if there is any monetary or other reward for a sense of injustice instead of a shootout. So if there is no state then there is no liability outside of a fist.


Mike

[Bonniedundee]

Liability is a societal created invention to solve disputes between people. The state intervenes to look at the argument between people to decide if there is any monetary or other reward for a sense of injustice instead of a shootout. So if there is no state then there is no liability outside of a fist.
Or private defence agencies, militias, arbritration, local juries,agreements insurance etc etc
There are a myriad of ways, most more effective than a state run by and for the ruling classes, founded by conquest and funded by theft.

This is one area where ancaps are really good, particulary when added to the arguments of other anarchists and radical decentralists, they can explode crap like public goods theory, all in the terminology and framework of those who cling to notions.

[coloradoatheist]

Or private defence agencies, militias, arbritration, local juries,agreements insurance etc etc
There are a myriad of ways, most more effective than a state run by and for the ruling classes, founded by conquest and funded by theft.

This is one area where ancaps are really good, particulary when added to the arguments of other anarchists and radical decentralists, they can explode crap like public goods theory, all in the terminology and framework of those who cling to notions.

And it's where I disagree with them because what seperates the first world from the third world is the protection of property, the lack of arbritariness of justice, and corruption. If you want to live somewhere that has no state and life is based on which gang protects you move to Somalia (you won't have your fruits taken from you there).

Mike

[Norseman]

At the point where it is possible for the people to control their government completely, and where the government is able to control corporations effectively.

(As opposed to the corporations controlling the government, and using that to control the people.)

[Bonniedundee]

And it's where I disagree with them because what seperates the first world from the third world is the protection of property, the lack of arbritariness of justice, and corruption. If you want to live somewhere that has no state and life is based on which gang protects you move to Somalia (you won't have your fruits taken from you there).

Mike

Firstly the state is simply a gang, just a legitimised one, this argument of talking about Somalia is stupid, this is not an anarchist in the positive way or a free market society.

Secondly the state does not protect legitimate property, it never has, its chief function has always been the exploitation by one class of all others.

[coloradoatheist]

Firstly the state is simply a gang, just a legitimised one, this argument of talking about Somalia is stupid, this is not an anarchist in the positive way or a free market society.

Secondly the state does not protect legitimate property, it never has, its chief function has always been the exploitation by one class of all others.


So you want a society where everybody has the freedom to choose which arbitrator for all their transactions but they aren't smart enough to decide if working for Wal-Mart is a good idea?

Mike

[Bonniedundee]

So you want a society where everybody has the freedom to choose which arbitrator for all their transactions but they aren't smart enough to decide if working for Wal-Mart is a good idea?

Mike

Who said anything about being smart enough?

It not about being smart it is simply about coercion. A free market means a complete lack of legitimised, institutional coercion.
In my society you' d be completely free, in this society you are not, this is the difference.

[coloradoatheist]

Who said anything about being smart enough?

It not about being smart it is simply about coercion. A free market means a complete lack of legitimised, institutional coercion.
In my society you' d be completely free, in this society you are not, this is the difference.

Why do you choose to work at Wal-Mart instead of selling hotdogs? Why not offer your services that you do at Wal-Mart to the general public? It's not coercion, they just offer better alternatives.


Mike

[Bonniedundee]

Why do you choose to work at Wal-Mart instead of selling hotdogs? Why not offer your services that you do at Wal-Mart to the general public? It's not coercion, they just offer better alternatives.You are commenting about our current economy, you seem completely unable to grasp that because there has been and is massive coercion in our system this both creates involuntary exchanges and taints many other transactions.

The states steals money in taxes, this is an involuntary exchange it takes away from some of the choices I would have in a voluntary society, it redistributes this income which changes wealth, bargaining power, social relations etc which greatly changes things from what they'd be in a voluntary market etc etc.
Hence it is a complete travesty to say our economy even approaches a free market, so few exchanges are really voluntary, they are only different in degrees from the choices faced by a slave in the ancient world who "voluntarily" works for his master rather than tries to escape.

[untermensche]

However this is where it doesn't become free. It's voluntary for me to decide to work for a corporation even if they take the fruits of my labor.

A free market is where different parties can agree to exchange services and goods.

Mike
And it is your freedom to sell yourself into slavery or indentured servitude.

But of course doing those things is forbidden because the practice is immoral.

Just as the practice of taking the fruits of other peoples irreplaceable labor should be.

[xunzian]

I think one of the best arguments for tax is the society it produces. The government provides the safety and stability that allows the normal functioning of the economy.

So, think of taxes as paying for this service. It isn't forced anymore than any other economic interaction. Why does a store 'force' me to pay when I take an item from it? By having an interaction within the confines of the area the government keeps safe you are using their service.

I mean, try setting up a business in an area where the government has collapsed -- you can't. ow, here is the kick. We are both obliged to pay for and use the government's services. This makes them vaguely reminiscent of things like the mill on the lord's manor, or perhaps something like the salt tax.

But the real question is: who cares? The alternative isn't pretty.

[Stinger]

And it is your freedom to sell yourself into slavery or indentured servitude.

But of course doing those things is forbidden because the practice is immoral.

Just as the practice of taking the fruits of other peoples irreplaceable labor should be. Once a person becomes a slave: they lose all ability to make choices. This is immoral. However, the wage slave can change his mind and quit his job tomorrow. Here's why I enjoy being a wage slave: I can learn a great trade while getting paid, I can work 40 hours a week and not have to worry about the survivability of the company, and I don't have to have large sums of my own money invested into the company.

[untermensche]

Once a person becomes a slave: they lose all ability to make choices. This is immoral. However, the wage slave can change his mind and quit his job tomorrow. Here's why I enjoy being a wage slave: I can learn a great trade while getting paid, I can work 40 hours a week and not have to worry about the survivability of the company, and I don't have to have large sums of my own money invested into the company.
The wage slave quits his job and then does what?

Becomes a CEO?

The wage slave must simply find another, hopefully better, master to be a wage slave for.

[Stinger]

The wage slave quits his job and then does what?

Becomes a CEO?

The wage slave must simply find another, hopefully better, master to be a wage slave for. A wage slave can quit his job and find another. Or he can start his own business. I've started two new businesses and I'm not a rocket scientist. One business failed, the other is still around after more than 10 years. Too many people think that owning their own business is nirvana, and I'm here to tell you that it's not.

[untermensche]

A wage slave can quit his job and find another. Or he can start his own business. I've started two new businesses and I'm not a rocket scientist. One business failed, the other is still around after more than 10 years. Too many people think that owning their own business is nirvana, and I'm here to tell you that it's not.
SOME (the minority) wage slaves can break free of the slavery.

That does not make the slavery moral.

[Hooboy !!]

I would say the mere existence of a state, is socialist, since it collectivizes something. It's a matter of degree, not substance.
I agree that the presence of a state is a socialist structure. It is the community (in a democratic society). You do not necessarily have to have any industry or service collectivized in order for the state's or the community's interests to be considered in the decision making process.

For me the defining quality of whether or not a society is Socialist is the balance of power. Does the community have more power than the individual?

There are different kinds of power:

- Military or force -- In this case, the state wins hands down. The US constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, but the individual, when pitted against the state, simply has no chance to defend themselves.

- Legislate laws -- In a representative government, the individual has all of the power, as long as there is transparency in the government. This is why freedom of the press is so important and why it is guaranteed in the US constitution.

- Enforce the laws -- As long as the individual has the ability to file a complaint, report a crime, make a citizen's arrest, defend themselves, etc, then this is equally shared with the state. This is why too that the individual is protected in the US constitution with a right to "due process".

- Economic -- The key to self-determination is the ability to benefit from access to resources, and the fruits of labor. Every time the state assumes ownership of a resource or an industry, this removes an opportunity from the individual.

Too often, the discussion on socialism focuses on only the last one, economic. Socialism does not necessarily have to hold title to or possess the means of production though, if it has the power to take it whenever it feels like it, in the name of "the good of the community", or if it is exerting a controlling interest in the management of the economy again, in the name of "the good of the community".

A society becomes socialist when the wants and desires of the individual become subservient to the wants and desires of the community.

[Loren Pechtel]

The wage slave quits his job and then does what?

Becomes a CEO?

The wage slave must simply find another, hopefully better, master to be a wage slave for.

Or start their own business.

[Loren Pechtel]

SOME (the minority) wage slaves can break free of the slavery.

That does not make the slavery moral.

And what alternative do you propose?

Remember that people consume and need to produce at least as much as they consume.

[untermensche]

And what alternative do you propose?

Remember that people consume and need to produce at least as much as they consume.
It's very simple. It's called ownership through labor. You acquire ownership by expending labor. So all who labor for an enterprise have ownership of that enterprise.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

In the loosest sense, socialism would be any system in which the means of life are held in common ownership, either through state representation or true collectivization.

In this sense, some states can have more or less collective ownership than others. The more utilities/businesses are state-owned or run at the micro level by communities, the more socialist a society is. In very general terms, of course.

[Loren Pechtel]

It's very simple. It's called ownership through labor. You acquire ownership by expending labor. So all who labor for an enterprise have ownership of that enterprise.

In other words, simply hand them ownership because they got hired???

What's going to pay for that? Do you have to buy into a job? That would be an utter disaster!

Do you realize that most people when they get capital are going to spend it?? How do you propose preserving the capital that society needs to function??

The more capital in society the higher the standard of living.

[Metaphor]

Too often, the discussion on socialism focuses on only the last one, economic. Socialism does not necessarily have to hold title to or possess the means of production though, if it has the power to take it whenever it feels like it, in the name of "the good of the community", or if it is exerting a controlling interest in the management of the economy again, in the name of "the good of the community".

A society becomes socialist when the wants and desires of the individual become subservient to the wants and desires of the community.

That's absurd. By that definition, almost every country in the world is socialist. Individual wants and desires are traded for the community's wants and desires ALL THE TIME. You may want to murder me, but it is in the community's best interest not to have murderers running about unpunished, so it prohibits murder for all.

[Bonniedundee]

And it is your freedom to sell yourself into slavery or indentured servitude.

But of course doing those things is forbidden because the practice is immoral.

Just as the practice of taking the fruits of other peoples irreplaceable labor should be.

In a free market where everyone owns only legitimate labour made property(this is the basis for all libertarian rights, lockean, mutualist, geoist even communist, so please no American libertarians embarrass themselves by commenting about its impossibility.) and which would remove all state created monopolies which prevent free competition among capital, therefore creating equal bargaining for labour and capital this would not be a problem.

In a free market using the most sticky, lockean rights I'd doubt you'd have more than a mix of small capitalist entreprises, co-ops and the self-employed, in less sticky systems you'd have even less capitalists.

[Stinger]

It's very simple. It's called ownership through labor. You acquire ownership by expending labor. So all who labor for an enterprise have ownership of that enterprise. Why can't I be a laborer and not an owner? All that I want to do is work all day and then go home and relax. I don't mind being a passive owner. I buy stocks. I'm content being a wage slave and getting 9% or 10% return on my stocks. The benefits of being an owner are greatly exaggerated. I don't want to work 80 hours a week and worry and stress about the 10,000 decisions that have to make each day. And for what? So that I can buy a second home and a fancy sports car?

[Bonniedundee]

I agree that the presence of a state is a socialist structure.One word ANARCHISTS!!!!.

Too often, the discussion on socialism focuses on only the last one, economic. Socialism does not necessarily have to hold title to or possess the means of production though, if it has the power to take it whenever it feels like it, in the name of "the good of the community", or if it is exerting a controlling interest in the management of the economy again, in the name of "the good of the community".

A society becomes socialist when the wants and desires of the individual become subservient to the wants and desires of the community.This is absurd, you do realise you are using completely different definitions to any socialists, what is the point?

To a socialist it means removing economic exploitation, or what is the same giving the workers full control and ownership of t fruits of their labour.
This is often expressed in the view the workers should own and control the means of production.
This is what socialism means to socialists, deal with it or don't talk about socialism.

[untermensche]

Why can't I be a laborer and not an owner? All that I want to do is work all day and then go home and relax. I don't mind being a passive owner. I buy stocks. I'm content being a wage slave and getting 9% or 10% return on my stocks. The benefits of being an owner are greatly exaggerated. I don't want to work 80 hours a week and worry and stress about the 10,000 decisions that have to make each day. And for what? So that I can buy a second home and a fancy sports car?
Owners, if they also run what they own must work hard. It is hard to get wage slaves motivated. It is hard to make all the decisions yourself.

But these nightmares end when you end wage slavery and replace it with labor ownership.

Now the laborers are far more motivated and all decisions are made as a group and therefore that work is spread around.

[coloradoatheist]

Owners, if they also run what they own must work hard. It is hard to get wage slaves motivated. It is hard to make all the decisions yourself.

But these nightmares end when you end wage slavery and replace it with labor ownership.

Now the laborers are far more motivated and all decisions are made as a group and therefore that work is spread around.



Short term yes, long term liability comes into question. There's nothing stopping that from happening now, what co-op have you started?


Mike

[Stinger]

Owners, if they also run what they own must work hard. It is hard to get wage slaves motivated. It is hard to make all the decisions yourself.

But these nightmares end when you end wage slavery and replace it with labor ownership.

Now the laborers are far more motivated and all decisions are made as a group and therefore that work is spread around. I'm curious: how old are you and do you have any kids? Please don't take offense. But, I used to be a lot more motivated for work. I used to be willing to work long hours and do whatever it takes. I still do work hard and make a lot of money for my company. But now it's spending time with family that motivates me. I'm also a lot more into sports than I used to be. I'm in the best shape of my life. Bottom line: some extram money for being a owner just isn't worth it to me.

[Bonniedundee]

Short term yes, long term liability comes into question. There's nothing stopping that from happening now, what co-op have you started?There most certainly is a limit of choice and freedom for co-ops, thanks to the state and its supporters.

We don't and really have never lived in a free market, the state has partaken in massive intervention to aid big business and keep small business and the worker down.
So any talk abou alternatives is stupid, we are limited by the state from many of the possibilities and freedoms a free society would allow.

Tell me why the hell does a supposed free marketeer support this kind of crap?

[Stinger]

There most certainly is a limit of choice and freedom for co-ops, thanks to the state and its supporters. ?? There are ESOPs all over the place in America. It sounds like you don't have many in England?

[coloradoatheist]

There most certainly is a limit of choice and freedom for co-ops, thanks to the state and its supporters.

We don't and really have never lived in a free market, the state has partaken in massive intervention to aid big business and keep small business and the worker down.
So any talk abou alternatives is stupid, we are limited by the state from many of the possibilities and freedoms a free society would allow.

Tell me why the hell does a supposed free marketeer support this kind of crap?

Small businesses employ half the people in the US and most businesses are small.

Mike

[Bonniedundee]

?? There are ESOPs all over the place in America. It sounds like you don't have many in England?We have co-ops, but there freedoms are limited from what they'd be on a free market.

Again why is a supposed "libertarian" fighting against free markets?

[Bonniedundee]

Small businesses employ half the people in the US and most businesses are small.This answers nothing.

Why do you not support free markets?

[coloradoatheist]

We have co-ops, but there freedoms are limited from what they'd be on a free market.

Again why is a supposed "libertarian" fighting against free markets?

Their only freedom that's limited is sometimes raising capital but they can convert to a corporation after being a co-op but still keep the same ownership structure.

Mike

[Bonniedundee]

Their only freedom that's limited is sometimes raising capital but they can convert to a corporation after being a co-op but still keep the same ownership structure.This irrelevant there is and has been massive intervention, that means we have nothing like a free market, anyone will tell you that.
Have you Rothbard, or Nock?

So why do you support this statist economy and not free markets?

Come on don't dodge it i want to here it from you, either admit you don't support free markets or start supporting them.

[coloradoatheist]

This irrelevant there is and has been massive intervention, that means we have nothing like a free market, anyone will tell you that.
Have you Rothbard, or Nock?

So why do you support this statist economy and not free markets?

Come on don't dodge it i want to here it from you, either admit you don't support free markets or start supporting them.

I do support free markets, I don't believe some state regulation prevents free markets like you do. If there wasn't free markets we would have no businesses that started.

Mike

[Bonniedundee]

I do support free markets, I don't believe some state regulation prevents free markets like you do. This is the bloody definition of a free market.
A regulation's very point is to decrease freedom and hence make markets unfree.
You might as well have posted freedom=slavery or black=white, this is what you are trying to do, you are trying to use free market rhetoric for your statist purposes.

If there wasn't free markets we would have no businesses that started.There are markets they are not free.

[Stinger]

We have co-ops, but there freedoms are limited from what they'd be on a free market.

Again why is a supposed "libertarian" fighting against free markets? What is "free" about your idea? You want to force me to be an owner. I don't want to be one. In my system, I can be an owner or a wage slave. I prefer choice.

[Loren Pechtel]

In a free market where everyone owns only legitimate labour made property(this is the basis for all libertarian rights, lockean, mutualist, geoist even communist, so please no American libertarians embarrass themselves by commenting about its impossibility.) and which would remove all state created monopolies which prevent free competition among capital, therefore creating equal bargaining for labour and capital this would not be a problem.

In a free market using the most sticky, lockean rights I'd doubt you'd have more than a mix of small capitalist entreprises, co-ops and the self-employed, in less sticky systems you'd have even less capitalists.

In other words, you want to drop us to maybe 19th century level?

In other words, kill billions. At 19th century tech we can't feed the world's current population.

Furthermore, it would very quickly bring on a resource crunch. We would fall to the early stone age if we didn't go extinct.

[Loren Pechtel]

Why can't I be a laborer and not an owner? All that I want to do is work all day and then go home and relax. I don't mind being a passive owner. I buy stocks. I'm content being a wage slave and getting 9% or 10% return on my stocks. The benefits of being an owner are greatly exaggerated. I don't want to work 80 hours a week and worry and stress about the 10,000 decisions that have to make each day. And for what? So that I can buy a second home and a fancy sports car?

Exactly. Being an owner isn't the cakewalk so many leftists think it is. My wife used to be the only acupuncturist in town without her own office--she simply didn't want the hassle of running an office.

[Loren Pechtel]

Owners, if they also run what they own must work hard. It is hard to get wage slaves motivated. It is hard to make all the decisions yourself.

But these nightmares end when you end wage slavery and replace it with labor ownership.

Now the laborers are far more motivated and all decisions are made as a group and therefore that work is spread around.

Making all decisions as a group only works if everyone knows how to run the whole business. In small cases this might work. In larger businesses this is an utter impossibility.

The reality is that one hires many sorts of professional (off the top of my head common things are: accountants, many flavors of IT guys & lawyers) because one doesn't know how to do the job. Make decisions democratically and their situation is going to be determined more by their PR abilities than the needs of the company. Aspergers is very common amongst IT professionals, especially programmers. (It's much less of a handicap in such a position and actually tends to make someone better at such jobs.) We will almost always flunk a PR type task.

Us IT types already have enough of a time convincing management of what's needed, trying to convince the workers....I hope you like plenty of downtime.

[Loren Pechtel]

We have co-ops, but there freedoms are limited from what they'd be on a free market.

Again why is a supposed "libertarian" fighting against free markets?

What limits are you talking about?

Want a co-op? Find some like-minded people and start one.

[Bonniedundee]

What is "free" about your idea? You want to force me to be an owner. I don't want to be one. In my system, I can be an owner or a wage slave. I prefer choice.

I think you have the wrong guy, I never said anything about that.

I just suggested completely free markets. Of course I believe that they'd be far more co-ops but that is immaterial to this discussion.

[Bonniedundee]

In other words, you want to drop us to maybe 19th century level?

In other words, kill billions. At 19th century tech we can't feed the world's current population.

Furthermore, it would very quickly bring on a resource crunch. We would fall to the early stone age if we didn't go extinct.
If that is what you think of completely free makrets why do you persist in wrongly calling yourself any kind of libertarian?

[Bonniedundee]

What limits are you talking about?Massive state intervention in the free market since the dawn of capitalism and before aimed at aiding the rich, big business etc and in keeping small business and workers down.
In other words creating competition among labour and little among capital.

Want a co-op? Find some like-minded people and start one.In a free market I'd love to, not in this statist hole we live in.

[coloradoatheist]

If that is what you think of completely free makrets why do you persist in wrongly calling yourself any kind of libertarian?

I'm willing to call myself a Constitutionist but I think that party has religion tied to it.


Mike

[Bonniedundee]

I'm willing to call myself a Constitutionist but I think that party has religion tied to it.


Mike

That comment was aimed at Loren.

[Canard DuJour]

For me the defining quality of whether or not a society is Socialist is the balance of power. Does the community have more power than the individual?

[...]

A society becomes socialist when the wants and desires of the individual become subservient to the wants and desires of the community.

This is like saying we should restrict forrests to make room for trees. If the wants and desires of a community of 100 are subservient to those of an individual, you have 99 subservient individuals. Conflicts of interest occur between individuals, not between indivdual and community because community is simply a collective noun for individuals (as right-wingers never tire of reminding us).

The least coercive solution we've found to conflict of interest is democracy. It's not perfect. That there are conflicts of interest in the first place tells us that this isn't the kind of world in which it's realistic to expect any perfect solution. As democracy becomes more prevalent in a society's economy, it can be said to be more socialist but I agree that there's no arbitrary dividing line.

[untermensche]

Short term yes, long term liability comes into question. There's nothing stopping that from happening now, what co-op have you started?


Mike
When you compete against those who freely deal with totalitarian and repressive governments to get those governments to supply near-slave labor, as is occuring in China, you will lose.

These kind of practices must be outlawed before there can be any fair playing fields.

I realize some love the idea of uneven playing fields and cringe at any suggestion to level them.

[Hooboy !!]

This is like saying we should restrict forrests to make room for trees. If the wants and desires of a community of 100 are subservient to those of an individual, you have 99 subservient individuals. Conflicts of interest occur between individuals, not between indivdual and community because community is simply a collective noun for individuals (as right-wingers never tire of reminding us).

The least coercive solution we've found to conflict of interest is democracy. It's not perfect. That there are conflicts of interest in the first place tells us that this isn't the kind of world in which it's realistic to expect any perfect solution. As democracy becomes more prevalent in a society's economy, it can be said to be more socialist but I agree that there's no arbitrary dividing line.
I think the assumption here is that the wants and desires of the 1 is mutually exclusive of the wants and desires of the 99. In some cases... this is probably true. But not all cases. The fundamental question is: To what extent can the individual's wants and desires be satsified?

There will be cases where the individual's wants and desires are so that most or all of their wants and desires are in conflict with the rest of the community. This is by definition anti-social behavior. I see no point in trying to define a rule by the exceptions in this case.

Personally, I think people, if given enough room and resources, are quite capable of living fairly well insulated from the rest of the community and then able to indulge themselves as they see fit.

I read an interesting story the other day (I do not know how reliable it is) where people were auctioning themselves off to be eaten by other people.

I find nothing wrong with this. If a person likes the taste of human flesh, and another person wants to die, why not let them enter into a transaction where both individual's wants and desires are fulfilled?

Yet, in our society this is really frowned on. This is a case where society sees fit to impose its own moral standard on others, irrespective of how it affects the community. I have similar trouble with any victimless "crime", though I think people can be very short-sighted on determining if a crime is indeed victimless. Drug abuse for example. If there were no social welfare programs for health, food, shelter, etc, then yea... it would be a victimless crime. But, if I am indirectly paying for the consequences of their behavior, then I am a victim.

[Loren Pechtel]

If that is what you think of completely free makrets why do you persist in wrongly calling yourself any kind of libertarian?

You're making a false assumption about what a completely free market is.

The proposal I'm replying to would in effect preclude any large organizations. That precludes anything that requires a large organization to accomplish.

One simple, obvious problem comes up: Chip fabricators are very big, expensive projects. No large organizations = no computers.

[Loren Pechtel]

In a free market I'd love to, not in this statist hole we live in.

What is the government doing that keeps you from setting up a co-op??

[Norseman]

What is the government doing that keeps you from setting up a co-op??

The same thing it's doing that keeps you from setting up any small business. It favors big companies, and leaves the little ones to fend for themselves. An example (http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/319/index.html), if you haven't already heard of things like the no-bid contracts to Haliburton, or of the massive corruption in the FDA, or of Jack Abramoff bribing senators to change laws on behalf of Tyco. Big companies have the money to buy practically anything, be it changes in laws, rulings from judges, or evasion of taxes. Mom and pop stores, or small cooperatives can't do that. If they become a threat in any way to a company with that kind of money, they don't last very long, either by getting bought out, as with YouTube, or forced to compete with a company like Walmart. Situations like the Enron scandal don't happen often enough to keep small businesses afloat (and that only happened because there would have been hell to pay, given all the people affected by the rolling blackouts).

[Bonniedundee]

You're making a false assumption about what a completely free market is.No, you are simply trying to support statism while still claiming to be a free marketeer.
In a free market there would be no intervention in the market at all by the state, not even taxes.

The proposal I'm replying to would in effect preclude any large organizations. That precludes anything that requires a large organization to accomplish.By proposal you mean free markets and yes you are mostly right.

One simple, obvious problem comes up: Chip fabricators are very big, expensive projects. No large organizations = no computers.So? There would be no coercion, there would be freedom.
Your argument is simply utilitarian.

What is the government doing that keeps you from setting up a co-op??
There are plenty of things I put above, many of these are more to disadvantage them than stop you actually setting one up.


Massive state intervention in the free market since the dawn of capitalism and before aimed at aiding the rich, big business etc and in keeping small business and workers down.
In other words creating competition among labour and little among capital.

[Gracchus]

At what point does a society become Socialist?
A society becomes socialist at the point where people begin to matter more than money, where truth is more heeded than lies, and generosity is more honored than greed.

:wave:

[Alter]

A society becomes socialist at the point where people begin to matter more than money, where truth is more heeded than lies, and generosity is more honored than greed.

:wave:

But conversely, as the incremental reward for risk-taking and hard work and inventiveness and investment drop with excessive socialism, people are less likely to take risks and work hard and invent things and invest their money. And these are the drivers of a successful economy.

Yes, people should matter, and I completely agree with the earlier poster that we need a socially responsible capitalist economy. But never forget that resources will always be less than individual desires. Without individual rewards that are commensurate with risk/productivity/invention/investment, you will never run a successful economy.

[RED DAVE]

Just to jump in for a second.

From Alter:
But conversely, as the incremental reward for risk-taking and hard work and inventiveness and investment drop with excessive socialism, people are less likely to take risks and work hard and invent things and invest their money. And these are the drivers of a successful economy.Here we have the fundamental capitalist myth: that the capitalist system of reward and punishment is responsible for innovation and that the essence of capitalism is risk taking.

There is no reason to believe that this is true. There are slackers under capitalism. There may well be slackers under socialism. However, slacking is the capitalist's big boogy man to convince us that wage slavery is essential to human existence. As to innovation, sure incentive is cool. And under socialism, why not provide it? Incentive is not the problem. The problem is the social advantage of money in terms of power.

From Alter:
Yes, people should matter, and I completely agree with the earlier poster that we need a socially responsible capitalist economy.But now you've introduced an additional parameter into the capitalist equation: social responsibility. If this is necessary, then where does it begin and end? Supposed it is decided that capitalism, per se, is socially irresponsbile. Then what?

From Alter:
But never forget that resources will always be less than individual desires.Really? And where did you get that myth? If individual desires are stoked by advertising, etc., that may be true. However, to make this formula a fact of nature is nonsense.

From Alter:
Without individual rewards that are commensurate with risk/productivity/invention/investment, you will never run a successful economy.So you say. Now, considering that capitalism is unsuccessful in most of the world in providing a decent standard of living, it seems to me that this is a dubious proposition.

And, by the way, since when does capitalism reward risk and productivity? If that's were the case, miners and other people in dangerous professions, should be the most highly-paid people in the capitalist world, as they risk the most: their lives.

What capitalism rewards is the ability to invest capital on a grand scale, regardless of social consequences. But there's little risk in that: just ask any CEO with a golden parachute. Just ask Roger Smith.

C'mon, Alter. This is really primitive stuff. Can't you come up with a better set of justifications for capitalism?

RED DAVE

[Loren Pechtel]

The same thing it's doing that keeps you from setting up any small business. It favors big companies, and leaves the little ones to fend for themselves. An example (http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/319/index.html), if you haven't already heard of things like the no-bid contracts to Haliburton, or of the massive corruption in the FDA, or of Jack Abramoff bribing senators to change laws on behalf of Tyco. Big companies have the money to buy practically anything, be it changes in laws, rulings from judges, or evasion of taxes. Mom and pop stores, or small cooperatives can't do that. If they become a threat in any way to a company with that kind of money, they don't last very long, either by getting bought out, as with YouTube, or forced to compete with a company like Walmart. Situations like the Enron scandal don't happen often enough to keep small businesses afloat (and that only happened because there would have been hell to pay, given all the people affected by the rolling blackouts).

Most US businesses are small businesses.

I've had the same job for 18 years now. We've grown 20x in the years (production, not employees) I've held this job. I don't know exactly how many people we have, it's no more than a few hundered.

We've had a few hassles with the government over the years but nothing serious.

[Loren Pechtel]

No, you are simply trying to support statism while still claiming to be a free marketeer.
In a free market there would be no intervention in the market at all by the state, not even taxes.

By proposal you mean free markets and yes you are mostly right.

So? There would be no coercion, there would be freedom.
Your argument is simply utilitarian.

So you would prefer to be "free" and dead?

[Bonniedundee]

So you would prefer to be "free" and dead?
I'd rather we have free markets, the rest is a completely different argument. Feel free to start a thread on why your system of intervention is better than free makrets if you wish.

[Gracchus]

But conversely, as the incremental reward for risk-taking and hard work and inventiveness and investment drop with excessive socialism, people are less likely to take risks and work hard and invent things and invest their money. And these are the drivers of a successful economy.

Just so, steroids are the drivers of a successful athletic career. Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will fish the ocean clear of fish.

Yes, people should matter, and I completely agree with the earlier poster that we need a socially responsible capitalist economy.

Socialism is socially responsible. Capitalism is responsible only to profit.

But never forget that resources will always be less than individual desires.

Indeed. But resources may not always be less than individual needs. That is why untrammeled greed is not a good thing. It must be curbed lest the forests be clear cut, topsoil washed to the sea, and air water and soil polluted by industrial waste. That is not opinion, that is history!

Without individual rewards that are commensurate with risk/productivity/invention/investment, you will never run a successful economy.

The capitalist risks money but it is the laborer who risks life and health and the laborer who produces. And the whole point of a capitalist economy is that it is not in any sense run, it is allowed to run free of restraint.

A successful economy, I would deem, is one where every able-bodied person is guaranteed a job, and medical care, and a decent home, and every child receives a balanced diet and a decent education.

A successful economy is not, I think, a system where greedy, socially irresponsible pirates are permitted to rape the environment for short-term unsustainable profits. It is not an economy where those who inherit great wealth, shtup their secretaries on the office couch, and write off their meals, liquor and sky boxes as business expenses while their employees risk their lives in mines and mills for wages a thousand times less than the unearned income of the idle boss.

:wave:

[Loren Pechtel]

I'd rather we have free markets, the rest is a completely different argument. Feel free to start a thread on why your system of intervention is better than free makrets if you wish.

I suggest you commit suicide. By the standards you are listing you would be improving your situation.

[Stinger]

A successful economy is not, I think, a system where greedy, socially irresponsible pirates are permitted to rape the environment for short-term unsustainable profits. It is not an economy where those who inherit great wealth, shtup their secretaries on the office couch, and write off their meals, liquor and sky boxes as business expenses while their employees risk their lives in mines and mills for wages a thousand times less than the unearned income of the idle boss.

:wave: {Snipped} I always hear socialists complain that the capitalists are raping the environment and people working in the capitalist factories are being paid slave wages. And yet it is the socialist countries (in particular USSR, East Germany, China, North Korea, and etc. that had atrocious environments! The environment in America and Europe and other mixed economies was treated far better than how the communists treated their environment. And most factory workers in America earned far more than their communist counterparts.

[Bonniedundee]

I suggest you commit suicide. By the standards you are listing you would be improving your situation.Whatever. I've shown(again.) you do not support free markets and would happily sacrifice them for "progress", which usually means taking taxes to fund corporations.

[Stinger]

Whatever. I've shown(again.) you do not support free markets and would happily sacrifice them for "progress", which usually means taking taxes to fund corporations. No, it's that your definition of free market does not match what other people think. Secondly, corporations pay far more in taxes than they receive back in subsidies.

[Bonniedundee]

No, it's that your definition of free market does not match what other people think.My definition is free exchanges with no legitimised coercion based on legitimate proeprty rights conducive with self-ownership, this is the definition of free market.

What yours, free exchanges except when the state feels it i