Socialism: Some Questions

[Mr Carcer]

I have to admit that the more time I spend here, the more I realize that I have a very ill-informed take on socialism. So I've come up with some questions with the intention of being educated by the socialists of IIDB.

1a. Is egalitarianism necessary for socialism? For example, could the wealth collected by the state in the form of taxes be distributed to a select group of people with no regard for narrowing the gap between the haves and havenots.

1b. Is the act of distributing wealth a necessary part of socialism?

2. Does the state have to own all of primary, secondary, and tertiary industries or does it only need to own a significant percentage of those industries?

3a. Is democracy a necessary part of socialism? Would a totalitarian regime who did such things as own the nations industries and redistribute weath be a socialist regime?

3b. Would a nation where people had democratic control over their workplaces but no democratic rights outside of work be a socialist nation?

4. What does a free market mean under socialism?

5. Not all socialists are communists, but are all communists socialist?

6. Is socialism compatible with anarchism?

7. Does socialism necessarily mean having national health service, welfare, and/or other similar programmes?

[Bonniedundee]

1a. Is egalitarianism necessary for socialism? For example, could the wealth collected by the state in the form of taxes be distributed to a select group of people with no regard for narrowing the gap between the haves and havenots.None of this has much to do with socialism.

Socialism just means you recieve the full value of your labour ie no economic exploitation.

1b. Is the act of distributing wealth a necessary part of socialism?Not really.

2. Does the state have to own all of primary, secondary, and tertiary industries or does it only need to own a significant percentage of those industries?Hell no, in theory socialism can be statist or stateless, in practice it almost certainly has to be stateless.

3a. Is democracy a necessary part of socialism? Would a totalitarian regime who did such things as own the nations industries and redistribute weath be a socialist regime?In theory if it gave the workers the full value of their labour, in practice this wouldn't occur.

4. What does a free market mean under socialism?Some socialists are free marketeers, such as Benjamin Tucker or Proudhon, I guess this is what you mean.


6. Is socialism compatible with anarchism?All anarchism, even that which claims to be capitalist would create a socialist system.

[RED DAVE]

As the Supreme Grand Red Socialist Commissar Guru of these boards, I' will undertake to answer your questions oh young one.

I have to admit that the more time I spend here, the more I realize that I have a very ill-informed take on socialism. So I've come up with some questions with the intention of being educated by the socialists of IIDB.Start here.

The Two Souls of Socialism

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

No thread on socialism is complete without it.

Your individual questions will be answered in good time. In the meantime, here is what socialism will really be like.

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

[Autonemesis]

1a. Is egalitarianism necessary for socialism? For example, could the wealth collected by the state in the form of taxes be distributed to a select group of people with no regard for narrowing the gap between the haves and havenots.

No, that's the modern USA.

1b. Is the act of distributing wealth a necessary part of socialism?

No, but it's a necessary part of capitalism.

2. Does the state have to own all of primary, secondary, and tertiary industries or does it only need to own a significant percentage of those industries?

The state doesn't have to own anything.

3a. Is democracy a necessary part of socialism?

Yes.

Would a totalitarian regime who did such things as own the nations industries and redistribute weath be a socialist regime?

No, you already called that by the same name socialists use: totalitarianism.

3b. Would a nation where people had democratic control over their workplaces but no democratic rights outside of work be a socialist nation?

That's a curious question. But I think not.

4. What does a free market mean under socialism?

The same thing it means now: an idea used for rhetorical flourish, but that doesn't actually exist in reality.

5. Not all socialists are communists, but are all communists socialist?

No.

6. Is socialism compatible with anarchism?

Nothing is compatible with anarchism.

7. Does socialism necessarily mean having national health service, welfare, and/or other similar programmes?

It'd be a pretty piss-poor socialist society if it did not. And by that I mean literally poor, as in not having the resources to do it.

[RED DAVE]

From Mr Carcer:
1a. Is egalitarianism necessary for socialism? For example, could the wealth collected by the state in the form of taxes be distributed to a select group of people with no regard for narrowing the gap between the haves and havenots.Egalitarianism is necessary in terms of absolute access to all society's resources from birth. As Euro_Agnostic pointed out, the state-supervised redistribution of the social product produced by the many to the few is typical of capitalism.

From Mr Carcer:
1b. Is the act of distributing wealth a necessary part of socialism?Yes. Capitalism distributes wealth also, in favor of the wealthy minority.

From Mr Carcer:
2. Does the state have to own all of primary, secondary, and tertiary industries or does it only need to own a significant percentage of those industries?My own belief, and this is mine only, is that especially in what your calling terriary industry, there will be a fair amount of regulated private ownership for a long time.

From Mr Carcer:
3a. Is democracy a necessary part of socialism? Would a totalitarian regime who did such things as own the nations industries and redistribute weath be a socialist regime?Euro_Agnostic is right on. A society where the means of production are owned and controlled by a centralized totalitarian state is called state capitalism.

From Mr Carcer:
3b. Would a nation where people had democratic control over their workplaces but no democratic rights outside of work be a socialist nation?Absolutely not.

From Mr Carcer:
4. What does a free market mean under socialism?Again, as Euro_Agnostic pointed out, the so-called free market is a piece of capitalist science fiction. Capitalism is a highly regulated system. I believe there will be a certain amount of competition under socialism; however, it will be highly regulated as under capitalism.

From Mr Carcer:
5. Not all socialists are communists, but are all communists socialist?It's not clear to me what you mean by "communists." If you mean people who support the system in the former Soviet Union, then the two groups are antagonistic. I spent a fair amount of time when I was younger in political conflct with such people, who my poitical tendency referred to as Stalinists.

From Mr Carcer:
6. Is socialism compatible with anarchism?The classic socialist/marxist schema is that socialism, will feature a democratic state that will help regulate the economy, etc. (That etc. can be a big item.) As democracy grows from below, the state will wither away. First, it will pass through so-called communism, which implies a minimal state. Finally, there will come anarchism where no state will be required. The quarrel beween socialists and anarchists involves the fact that anarchists want to skip over the two sages of socialism and communism straight to anarchism. Socialists believe that this is impossible.

From Mr Carcer:
7. Does socialism necessarily mean having national health service, welfare, and/or other similar programmes?Euro_Agnostic is spot on. Why would we have socialism without these things? What would be the point?

RED DAVE

[duretti]

I have to admit that the more time I spend here, the more I realize that I have a very ill-informed take on socialism. So I've come up with some questions with the intention of being educated by the socialists of IIDB.

1a. Is egalitarianism necessary for socialism? For example, could the wealth collected by the state in the form of taxes be distributed to a select group of people with no regard for narrowing the gap between the haves and havenots.

Socialism, as most socialists understand it involves the abolition of private property in its current form. It is not simply about redistributing property.

The theoretical principle is that everyone has equal ownership of all the means of production, not everyone has an equally sized bit which is all theirs. What you describe is (as red dave and euro agnostic have pointed out) welfare capitalism.

1b. Is the act of distributing wealth a necessary part of socialism?

The act of distributing wealth is a necessary part of any system.

2. Does the state have to own all of primary, secondary, and tertiary industries or does it only need to own a significant percentage of those industries?

Socialism does not require a state. Private property, however, does need to be abolished.

3a. Is democracy a necessary part of socialism? Would a totalitarian regime who did such things as own the nations industries and redistribute weath be a socialist regime?

Yes. If the means of production are truly controlled by everyone, then a democracy is the only way of enacting this.

3b. Would a nation where people had democratic control over their workplaces but no democratic rights outside of work be a socialist nation?

No.

4. What does a free market mean under socialism?

Nothing. The concept of the "free market" is built upon people having (in principle) ownership of things which they can exchange. Under socialism, as most socialists understand it, this complete ownership does not exist.

5. Not all socialists are communists, but are all communists socialist?

No. By communist, I assume you mean lenninist. If the state controls the means of production, but the people do not control the state, then the people do not control the means of production and as such it is not socialist.

6. Is socialism compatible with anarchism?

Anarchism is a form of socialism.
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html

7. Does socialism necessarily mean having national health service, welfare, and/or other similar programmes?

It means everyone has access to the means of life, without being required to work for another. So yes, those or equivalent

[Preno]

Most questions have been answered already quite satisfactorily, I'll just add a few points:
4. What does a free market mean under socialism?Socialism implies that the means of production are owned collectively (which does not make sense when taken literally, thus I prefer to say that it means the collective ownership of what is collectively used). Thus, that which is used individually can be owned and traded on a "free market" (which will be free of people making profit simply out of passive ownership).
5. Not all socialists are communists, but are all communists socialist?The word "communist" can refer either to various sorts of Marxists, which support an ostensibly transitional socialist state, or to people like anarcho-communists, who in theory oppose socialism as they consider it oppressive. So I'd answer "no".
6. Is socialism compatible with anarchism?On the face of it, no. Socialism requires a state to support it. However, in practice it appears that many, perhaps most anarchists want to establish some kind of socialism, and historically they have (in Spain). Thus: in theory no, in practice yes.

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

6. Is socialism compatible with anarchism?

Note that you have some contradictory answers here. I think the reason for this is that (1) both anarchism and socialism have subsets of other -isms and (2) to some extent discussion of anarchism is theoretical and/or anecdotal. I'll answer as follows: there are some forms of anarchism which are compatible with some forms of socialism and there are some forms of anarchism which are incompatible with some forms of socialism. For example, anarcho-syndicalism is a subset of libertarian socialism. Therefore, anarcho-syndicalism is compatible with socialism. Anarcho-capitalism is incompatible with socialism. Discussion of either of these forms of anarchism is anecdotal and/or theoretical.

[Mr Carcer]

My favourite answers so far are Red Dave's tongue-in-cheek ones. The others may be right. But funny trumps right any day of the week.

[untermensche]

I have to admit that the more time I spend here, the more I realize that I have a very ill-informed take on socialism.
Cubans probably don't understand capitalism very well either.

Heirarchal power systems indoctrinate people into their systems beginning at an early age. That is a major goal of what is called an "education".

There is no such thing as a society that is not socialist. And no society in which markets do not exist.

To be a socialist is simply to have concern for your fellow man. Something we all have to some degree. George Bush's father took care of young GW without thinking of profits. He was a socialist towards some. Fidel Castro knows about the neccessities of markets and capital investment.

Anarchism at it's roots is a concern for what is labeled "legitimate" power. It theorizes that when illegitimate power structures are exposed and carefully dismanteled people will take care of themselves just fine.

[Mr Carcer]

Socialism sounds like its based on utilitarian principles. I reject utilitarian principles. Does that mean I cannot be a socialist?

[untermensche]

Socialism sounds like its based on utilitarian principles. I reject utilitarian principles. Does that mean I cannot be a socialist?
It's based on normal human concern for other people.

It extends the concern people normally reserve for close friends and family to all.

[Mr Carcer]

Socialism sounds like its based on utilitarian principles. I reject utilitarian principles. Does that mean I cannot be a socialist?
It's based on normal human concern for other people.

It extends the concern people normally reserve for close friends and family to all.
Don't you mean it extends the concern people normally reserve for close friends and family to all within a community or nation?

By the way its not normal for human to be concerned for other people. It's very far from normal. It's only normal when there is cause for being concerned and there is something to be concerned about.

[untermensche]

Don't you mean it extends the concern people normally reserve for close friends and family to all within a community or nation?

By the way its not normal for human to be concerned for other people. It's very far from normal. It's only normal when there is cause for being concerned and there is something to be concerned about.
There is always something to be concerned with.

One's own needs.

It is far easier to meet your own needs by cooperating with others. This cooperation normally leads to a concern for those you cooperate with.

[coloradoatheist]

Don't you mean it extends the concern people normally reserve for close friends and family to all within a community or nation?

By the way its not normal for human to be concerned for other people. It's very far from normal. It's only normal when there is cause for being concerned and there is something to be concerned about.
There is always something to be concerned with.

One's own needs.

It is far easier to meet your own needs by cooperating with others. This cooperation normally leads to a concern for those you cooperate with.

I agree, hence why relationships are formed between corporations and between customers and businesses. A business has to provide a service to it's customers or it doesn't stay in business.


To answer the original question, socialism appears great on paper, just ignores reality.

Mike

[untermensche]

I agree, hence why relationships are formed between corporations and between customers and businesses. A business has to provide a service to it's customers or it doesn't stay in business.
The relationship between corporation and consumer is different from the relationship of corporation and other kinds of customers.

Billions are spent on advertising, not to educate, but to create some irrational attraction to an item of utility, like an automobile.

The consumer is reduced to an item of manipulation, not treated as a human being. Not treated with any real concern.

[coloradoatheist]

I agree, hence why relationships are formed between corporations and between customers and businesses. A business has to provide a service to it's customers or it doesn't stay in business.
The relationship between corporation and consumer is different from the relationship of corporation and other kinds of customers.

Billions are spent on advertising, not to educate, but to create some irrational attraction to an item of utility, like an automobile.

The consumer is reduced to an item of manipulation, not treated as a human being. Not treated with any real concern.


Advertising only gets some to the door and to try the product or service once, after that it depends on what the consumer experiences from the purchase. Advertising is a combination of education and product differentiation.


Mike

[untermensche]

Advertising only gets some to the door and to try the product or service once, after that it depends on what the consumer experiences from the purchase. Advertising is a combination of education and product differentiation.


Mike
Modern advertising is the science of using visual and auditory stimulation to create irrational emotional reactions to influence the decisions of as many people as possible.

It is pure manipulation, not education at all.

[coloradoatheist]

Advertising only gets some to the door and to try the product or service once, after that it depends on what the consumer experiences from the purchase. Advertising is a combination of education and product differentiation.


Mike
Modern advertising is the science of using visual and auditory stimulation to create irrational emotional reactions to influence the decisions of as many people as possible.

It is pure manipulation, not education at all.

It's a combination of a lot of things with education being a part of it. The part you are referring to is where you think hey I need a dishwashing liquid and you are looking down the isle and remember the cute commercial and decide to try it.

Mike

[untermensche]

It's a combination of a lot of things with education being a part of it. The part you are referring to is where you think hey I need a dishwashing liquid and you are looking down the isle and remember the cute commercial and decide to try it.

Mike
I don't know you. You may be above all of it.

I watch some commercial television. Mostly golf. There you get the drug and retirement investment and car commercials.

Three pretty good scams.

[Mr Carcer]

One's own needs.
Do you mean our needs cause us to feel concern or that we are concerned about our needs (perhaps as part of the process of fulfilling them)?

It is far easier to meet your own needs by cooperating with others. This cooperation normally leads to a concern for those you cooperate with.
It's not always easier. It depends on the task. For example, if you need to win a foot race, it does you no good to cooperate with your rivals. But you probably wouldn't do very well at a game of football without the cooperation of other players on your team. So the question remains: is life like a foot race or a game of football? To which my answer is that it is like neither. Or to put it another way sometime life is like a foot race and sometimes its like a game of football, but all too often it like a foot race and game of football all rolled into one.

[untermensche]

It's not always easier. It depends on the task. For example, if you need to win a foot race, it does you no good to cooperate with your rivals. But you probably wouldn't do very well at a game of football without the cooperation of other players on your team. So the question remains: is life like a foot race or a game of football? To which my answer is that it is like neither. Or to put it another way sometime life is like a foot race and sometimes its like a game of football, but all too often it like a foot race and game of football all rolled into one.
There is no need to introduce some antagonistic element into survival.

That does not benefit those surviving.

It does allow a few to control many. That is why it is promoted.

[Preno]

Socialism sounds like its based on utilitarian principles. I reject utilitarian principles. Does that mean I cannot be a socialist?I dunno, my reason for being a proponent of socialism is that I believe it maximizes people's freedom. Is that utilitarian?

[Dryhad]

1a. Is egalitarianism necessary for socialism?
They are synonymous.

For example, could the wealth collected by the state in the form of taxes be distributed to a select group of people with no regard for narrowing the gap between the haves and havenots.
That is not socialism. I don't know, that's Mercantilism or something. Maybe Mussolini style fascism. But not socialism. Socialism is defined by seeking equality.

1b. Is the act of distributing wealth a necessary part of socialism?
As someone else said, it's necessary in all systems. I agree. I think if we weren't so accustomed to capitalism (and before it, things that tried to be capitalism but stopped short) and the concept of ownership, it wouldn't seem the least bit natural. We've just lived with this idea (an idea older than capitalism, I grant) for so long.

2. Does the state have to own all of primary, secondary, and tertiary industries or does it only need to own a significant percentage of those industries?
There is no ownership. That's the flaw in this thinking. The "state" owns it by virtue of it having no owner. But the state is controlled by the people, so it is owned by both nobody and everybody. Having a single person owning part of it defeats the purpose.

3a. Is democracy a necessary part of socialism? Would a totalitarian regime who did such things as own the nations industries and redistribute weath be a socialist regime?
Trotsky said that socialism needs democracy like animals need air. I agree. I suppose in theory there's always benevolent philosopher kings, but in practice they don't exist and you certainly can't count on one in every generation.

3b. Would a nation where people had democratic control over their workplaces but no democratic rights outside of work be a socialist nation?
Hmm. Interesting question. It would, at very least, be a large double standard on the part of the nation. I'd say no, because it would miss the point of socialism, being that there shouldn't be such a division between workplace rights and civic rights.

4. What does a free market mean under socialism?
There is no market.

5. Not all socialists are communists, but are all communists socialist?
Socialist is a word English communists used to describe themselves in the early days of communism because they wanted to differentiate themselves from the similiar sounding Catholic communion. As such, the difference terms is largely arbitrary and will be different depending on who you ask.

6. Is socialism compatible with anarchism?
Yes. Anarchism is just an extention of democracy, after all. That's the ultimate goal, practicality aside.

7. Does socialism necessarily mean having national health service, welfare, and/or other similar programmes?
Yes.

It occurs to me that my answers may be describing a somewhat more radical system than you would describe as "socialism". However, this is what I believe and I have on occasion described myself as a socialist. I have trouble, as I said, distinguishing between "socialism" and "communism" because like most political labels they mean different things for different places, contexts, and people. My answers are probably closer to "communism" as you would describe it, though perhaps not how someone else would.

[coloradoatheist]

It's a combination of a lot of things with education being a part of it. The part you are referring to is where you think hey I need a dishwashing liquid and you are looking down the isle and remember the cute commercial and decide to try it.

Mike
I don't know you. You may be above all of it.

I watch some commercial television. Mostly golf. There you get the drug and retirement investment and car commercials.

Three pretty good scams.

drugs commercials are about informing people of conditions that they may not have known could be fixed or alternatives to the main drug (both patient and doctor). Retirement investment again is informational and product differentiation. Car commercials are product differential and informative (aka features and price). For car commercials all it can do is get you into a showroom.

Mike

[Bonniedundee]

It's a combination of a lot of things with education being a part of it. The part you are referring to is where you think hey I need a dishwashing liquid and you are looking down the isle and remember the cute commercial and decide to try it.

Mike

Bah, the point of advertising like most of our current instituations like Publik skools is to push goods and attitudes on people who simply wouldn't buy into these things otherwise, the whole of our totally administered society seems to strive towards this goal, it is a massive waste of resources.

Have you ever read Herbert Marcuse's One dimensional man?

[coloradoatheist]

It's a combination of a lot of things with education being a part of it. The part you are referring to is where you think hey I need a dishwashing liquid and you are looking down the isle and remember the cute commercial and decide to try it.

Mike

Bah, the point of advertising like most of our current instituations like Publik skools is to push goods and attitudes on people who simply wouldn't buy into these things otherwise, the whole of our totally administered society seems to strive towards this goal, it is a massive waste of resources.

Have you ever read Herbert Marcuse's One dimensional man?

I haven't read it. So without Taco Bell commercials on TV people wouldn't know to eat?

Mike

[camp freddie]

I find it interesting to hear what all you Americans think socialism is. It's like you're going all the way back to Marx or something.

Over in Europe, socialism means something entirely different. For a start, about half the european political parties self-describe themselves as socialist - and none of them are about to nationalise all industry and start paying lawyers the same as street-cleaners.

Over here, socialism is simply any political philosophy that puts the welfare of society as it's primary concern. In contrast liberalism puts individual freedom on a pedestal (with left liberals believing that redistribution of wealth will increase the net freedom of individuals) and conservatism tries not to rock the boat!

Over in Britain, Tony Blair has spent ages avoiding the question, "Are you a socialist", because it would destroy his base support if he said no. He still sings the Red Flag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag#The_anthem)at all party conferences.

[RED DAVE]

Over in Britain, Tony Blair has spent ages avoiding the question, "Are you a socialist", because it would destroy his base support if he said no. He still sings the Red Flag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag#The_anthem)at all party conferences.I'd love to see Blair singing the Red Flag. He should only choke on the words, the Bush-loving bastard.

If he's a socialist, I'm a ring-tailed wombat.

Here's another good pamphlet.

Socialism From Below

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

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

Sexier than Beyonce Knowles.

More likely to get you in trouble than a night with Paris Hilton.

More wisdom than Morgan Freeman.

It’s

THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO

(In case your teacher never read it to you at your daycare center.)

A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.

Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?

Two things result from this fact:

I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European powers to be itself a power.

II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a manifesto of the party itself.

To this end, Communists of various nationalities have assembled in London and sketched the following manifesto, to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages.http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm

RED DAVE

[psikeyhackr]

How many automobiles were in Europe when the Communist Manifesto appeared?

What did Karl Marx say about the planned obsolescence of automobiles?

With today's computers shouldn't the capitalists, socialists and communists all be able to handle accounting without breaking a sweat?

Technology has changed the economics but I think people that believe in ideologies allow their ideologies to distort their views of economics

Adam Smith said individuals pursuing their own self interest would best promote the nation's interests. But technology makes figuring out that interest a lot more complicated. Plus Freud came after Marx and we now have to cope with

Psycho-Techno-Economics.

psikey

[RED DAVE]

More interesting that the reincarceration of Paris Hilton. Better written than Newt Gingrich’s latest tome. More sex than Bill Clinton’s autobiography. It’s:

Socialism: Utopian and Scientific

Frederick Engels

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm

Modern Socialism is, in its essence, the direct product of the recognition, on the one hand, of the class antagonisms existing in the society of today between proprietors and non-proprietors, between capitalists and wage-workers; on the other hand, of the anarchy existing in production. But, in its theoretical form, modern Socialism originally appears ostensibly as a more logical extension of the principles laid down by the great French philosophers of the 18th century. Like every new theory, modern Socialism had, at first, to connect itself with the intellectual stock-in-trade ready to its hand, however deeply its roots lay in material economic facts.RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

I think it's fabulous that, counting this one, there are six threads going about socialism.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

Now that Paris Hilton is out, you'll have time to read:

Value, Price and Profit

Karl Marx

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/index.htm

The circumstances under which this paper was read are narrated at the beginning of the work. The paper was never published during the lifetime of Marx. It was found amongst his papers after the death of Engels. Among many other characteristics of Marx, this paper shows two especially. These are his patient willingness to make the meaning of his ideas plain to the humblest student, and the extraordinary clearness of those ideas. In a partial sense the present volume is an epitome of the first volume of Capital. More than one of us have attempted to analyze and simplify that volume, with not too much success perhaps. In fact, a witty friend and commentator has suggested that what is now required is an explanation by Marx of our explanations of him. I am often asked what is the best succession of books for the student to acquire the fundamental principles of Socialism. The question is a difficult one to answer. But, by way of suggestion, one might say, first, Engels' Socialism, Scientific And Utopian, then the present work, the first volume of Capital, and the Student's Marx. My small part in the preparation of this work has been reading the manuscript, making a few suggestions as to English forms of expression, dividing the work up into chapters and naming the chapters, and revising the proofs for press. All the rest, and by far the most important part, of the work has been done by her whose name appears on the title page. The present volume has already been translated into German.RED DAVE

[psikeyhackr]

Marx's Value, Price & Power mentions depreciation of gold and money. It does not discuss financial accounting.

We now have a society where they expect us to upgrade our computers on a regular basis. I was at a presentation by a Gateway rep and he said we should upgrade every 3 years. Of course he didn't say anything about the depreciation on those computers. If you buy a new $3,000 laptop you can expect to lose $1,000 in depreciation in the first year.

We are now stuck with this technological change so can we afford to continue ignoring the depreciation that it causes? I agree with Marx that the capitalists will rip off the workers any way they can. The planned obsolescence of technology is a relatively new strategy but it has been going on for decades now. I haven't encountered a socialist yet that likes the idea of mandatory accounting in the schools.

We don't need no capitalist education.

We need socialist thought control.

Teacher, leave them kids alone.

psik

[RED DAVE]

From psikeyhackr:
Marx's Value, Price & Power mentions depreciation of gold and money. It does not discuss financial accounting.Correct. It is not an accounting text.

From psikeyhackr:
We now have a society where they expect us to upgrade our computers on a regular basis. I was at a presentation by a Gateway rep and he said we should upgrade every 3 years. Of course he didn't say anything about the depreciation on those computers. If you buy a new $3,000 laptop you can expect to lose $1,000 in depreciation in the first year.Yes. So?

From psikeyhackr:
We are now stuck with this technological change so can we afford to continue ignoring the depreciation that it causes?No.

From psikeyhackr:
I agree with Marx that the capitalists will rip off the workers any way they can. The planned obsolescence of technology is a relatively new strategy but it has been going on for decades now. I haven't encountered a socialist yet that likes the idea of mandatory accounting in the schools.Yes. It's an atrocity that we socialists don't demand that accounting isn't taught in grade school. It's all our fault. Mea culpa

From psikeyhackr:
We don't need no capitalist education.Yes, absolutely no capitalist education.

From psikeyhackr:
We need socialist thought control.Yes, absolutely no socialist thought control. You find examples of socialist thought control, psikeyhackr, let me know.

From psikeyhackr:
Teacher, leave them kids alone.Well, as a teacher who is a socialist and also a socialist who is also a teacher ... I have to disagree.

RED DAVE

[psikeyhackr]

Correct. It is not an accounting text.

I should have said mention instead of discuss.

You don't like my Pink Floyd jokes? :D :D

What do you teach? If I may be so bold, subject/ages?

psik

[ZouPrime]

Damn accountants and their depreciation! If it's wasn't for it, my good old Macintosh Plus circa 1986 would still be worth 3500$.

[RED DAVE]

From psikeyhackr:
You don't like my Pink Floyd jokes? :D :DI hate Pink Floyd. Evil corrupters of the youth. :D

From psikeyhackr:
What do you teach? If I may be so bold, subject/ages?Primarily ESL and English, to adults.

I have taught every grade between daycare and college and almost every topic except gym and foreign languages.

RED DAVE

[psikeyhackr]

Damn accountants and their depreciation! If it's wasn't for it, my good old Macintosh Plus circa 1986 would still be worth 3500$.

Yeah, and it's all the fault of those physicists that I get sunburned, causing that fusion in the Sun. :eek:

psik

[coloradoatheist]

Damn accountants and their depreciation! If it's wasn't for it, my good old Macintosh Plus circa 1986 would still be worth 3500$.

Yeah, and it's all the fault of those physicists that I get sunburned, causing that fusion in the Sun. :eek:

psik



So people are worse off since they don't have 1986 Macintosh's?


Mike

[psikeyhackr]

So people are worse off since they don't have 1986 Macintosh's?

Mike

My point was that depreciation is no more the fault of economists or accountants than sunburn is the fault of physicists.

I just bought another Archos PMA400 for $200. It retailed for $800. So if someone payed full retail for it they lost $600 in depreciation. I can't possibly lose that much on it. An oriental rug purchased in 1986 shouldn't have lost as much as a Mac if properly taken care of.

I think new high end computers are a bad deal now because they are overkill for so many people. Games and rendering are about all that can tax their processing power. The average American isn't a nuclear physicist or theoretical mathematician. It truly amazes me how corporations were willing to pay $3,000,000 for an IBM 3033 in 1978 and it only had about the processing power of a 300 MHz Pentium II. So now we need operating systems like Vista and Leopard to incentivize people to upgrade their hardware.

The Saint in Computer Power User is saying that Vista is BOMBING. LOL

psik

[coloradoatheist]

Depreciation comes from several reasons

For some items its called by the unknowability factor. This is what causes the initial depreciation in some goods like cars, appliances, etc. For a buyer they are willing to pay a lot less for a product that they don't know the real reason why the person who bought it a short time ago and they want to sell it. They would rather trust a dealer where they can get a refund, exchange, warranty where you have to make an known guess of why the person suddenly wanted to dump a car, refigerator or TV even though it may be an honest reason.

Improvements in technology for the same price. This applies to TVs and computers that you as new technology becomes available, and new features are introduced why buy the old thing for the same price when you get the extra, so the exchange value of old things goes down.

And the third, which I think maybe you have the most problem with is wear and tear.


Yep, and Vista is not providing enough incentive to upgrade.

Mike

[Bonniedundee]

Planned obsolence and the policy of making peolple buy completely new things instead of upgrading parts is part of the problem of depreciation.

It is an important part of our kind of "push", consumerist society. More money can be made, and more power kept, by making or encouraging people to buy new versions of goods instead of encouraging or allowing them to update parts or even keep the largely fine utilities. You have to have the newest, most fashionable items even if they give you little extra utility.

[RED DAVE]

I really can’t figure out what all this stuff about depreciation has to do with socialism, so, for your amusement and edification I present:

Wage Labor and Capital

by Karl Marx

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/index.htm

The rock upon which the best economists were stranded, as long as they started out from the value of labor, vanishes as soon as we make our starting-point the value of labor-power. Labor-power is, in our present-day capitalist society, a commodity like every other commodity, but yet a very peculiar commodity. It has, namely, the peculiarity of being a value-creating force, the source of value, and, moreover, when properly treated, the source of more value than it possesses itself. In the present state of production, human labor-power not only produces in a day a greater value than it itself possesses and costs; but with each new scientific discovery, with each new technical invention, there also rises the surplus of its daily production over its daily cost, while as a consequence there diminishes that part of the working-day in which the laborer produces the equivalent of his day’s wages, and, on the other hand, lengthens that part of the working-day in which he must present labor gratis to the capitalist.RED DAVE

[coloradoatheist]

I really can’t figure out what all this stuff about depreciation has to do with socialism, so, for your amusement and edification I present:

Wage Labor and Capital

by Karl Marx

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/index.htm

The rock upon which the best economists were stranded, as long as they started out from the value of labor, vanishes as soon as we make our starting-point the value of labor-power. Labor-power is, in our present-day capitalist society, a commodity like every other commodity, but yet a very peculiar commodity. It has, namely, the peculiarity of being a value-creating force, the source of value, and, moreover, when properly treated, the source of more value than it possesses itself. In the present state of production, human labor-power not only produces in a day a greater value than it itself possesses and costs; but with each new scientific discovery, with each new technical invention, there also rises the surplus of its daily production over its daily cost, while as a consequence there diminishes that part of the working-day in which the laborer produces the equivalent of his day’s wages, and, on the other hand, lengthens that part of the working-day in which he must present labor gratis to the capitalist.RED DAVE


Planned obsolescence (sp?) would be an interesting discussion about a social group. The argument is that a capitalist is going to use PO to increase sales through the future to keep making more money so he's either going to introduce more features or make things so they break. What happens with the social group and that theory? Are they going to accept that in a year or two the business they are in will be gone because they won't keep creating new products?

Mike

[Bonniedundee]

Planned obsolescence (sp?) would be an interesting discussion about a social group. The argument is that a capitalist is going to use PO to increase sales through the future to keep making more money so he's either going to introduce more features or make things so they break. What happens with the social group and that theory? Are they going to accept that in a year or two the business they are in will be gone because they won't keep creating new products? Huh? I don't understand what you are trying to say?

Are you trying to say workers support this because it helps keep the businesses they work for stay afloat?

Then you are correct, if they are short-sighted they may well support this. But this doesn't mean real qualitative change is not possbile and it doesn't mean that planned obslence is the best possibility outside of the historical system we are currently in.

[coloradoatheist]

Planned obsolescence (sp?) would be an interesting discussion about a social group. The argument is that a capitalist is going to use PO to increase sales through the future to keep making more money so he's either going to introduce more features or make things so they break. What happens with the social group and that theory? Are they going to accept that in a year or two the business they are in will be gone because they won't keep creating new products? Huh? I don't understand what you are trying to say?

Are you trying to say workers support this because it helps keep the businesses they work for stay afloat?

Then you are correct, if they are short-sighted they may well support this. But this doesn't mean real qualitative change is not possbile and it doesn't mean that planned obslence is the best possibility outside of the historical system we are currently in.


I'm saying that for a worker run organization they are still going to have to continue selling goods or they need to sell enough of it the first time that is all they have to do.

Mike

[psikeyhackr]

I really can’t figure out what all this stuff about depreciation has to do with socialism,

You mean socialism functions outside of reality? :D

It must be more like capitalism than I thought.

Economists from Harvard and the University of Chicago that can't do algebra, SHOCKING! :devil1:

psik

[psikeyhackr]

For some items its called by the unknowability factor. This is what causes the initial depreciation in some goods like cars, appliances, etc. For a buyer they are willing to pay a lot less for a product that they don't know the real reason why the person who bought it a short time ago and they want to sell it.

I like to call that unknowability factor, psychological bullsh!t.

Lots of people spend money for ego and status. The corporations know this and redesign the products to appeal to that market. So actually we end up with lots of stupid variations but the old models go at reduced prices and that reduction is depreciation.

This kind of crap wasn't going on during Marx's day so he couldn't incorporate it into his economic theory. Socialist theory that doesn't include it is as obsolete as Marx.

psik

[unrealist42]

Yes, in Marx's day many companies built almost indestructible machinery that still works today. I have been in shipyards and woodworking shops where machines built in the 1800s are still used every day. Newer machines are replaced periodically because their inferior manufacture causes them to fail in ways that make replacement more economical but these old machines do not.

This is a problem if you are an industrialist in the machine tool business. If the machines don't wear out then your sales will eventually peter out and you will go out of business.

So, if you build an inferior machine your business is more certain because these machines will be replaced. You just need to plan your business around the average replacement cycle.

This is what manufacturers of washing machines do. Automobile manufacturers in the US an EU depend far more on marketing than actual obsolesence to get people to trade in their cars. In Japan, government mandated parts replacement makes it uneconomical to own a car after 4 or 5 years.

Millions of used cars are shipped overseas every year from these places to get them off the market. They go to Russia and South America and all over Asia where these cars are affordable for the new middle classes who could never afford to buy a new car.

[RED DAVE]

A thousand of so pages shorter than Atlas Shrugged.

More action than the Gospel of Mark.

More fun than a biography of George Bush.

It's:

The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon

Karl Marx

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch01.htm

Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. Caussidiere for Danton, Louis Blanc for Robespierre, the Montagne of 1848 to 1851 for the Montagne of 1793 to 1795, the nephew for the uncle. And the same caricature occurs in the circumstances of the second edition of the Eighteenth Brumaire.

Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language. Thus Luther put on the mask of the Apostle Paul, the Revolution of 1789-1814 draped itself alternately in the guise of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, and the Revolution of 1848 knew nothing better to do than to parody, now 1789, now the revolutionary tradition of 1793-95. In like manner, the beginner who has learned a new language always translates it back into his mother tongue, but he assimilates the spirit of the new language and expresses himself freely in it only when he moves in it without recalling the old and when he forgets his native tongue.RED DAVE

[Bonniedundee]

I'm saying that for a worker run organization they are still going to have to continue selling goods or they need to sell enough of it the first time that is all they have to do.So? It doesn't mean that kind of economy would have the kind of consumerist make up that we see today.

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, in Marx's day many companies built almost indestructible machinery that still works today. I have been in shipyards and woodworking shops where machines built in the 1800s are still used every day. Newer machines are replaced periodically because their inferior manufacture causes them to fail in ways that make replacement more economical but these old machines do not.

Simple machines or sophisticated ones, though??

There is also the factor that such machines are greatly over-engineered. They are far more expensive to make and slower at doing the job as a machine without so much extra mass to push around.

They are almost certainly also manpower intensive.

I work for a woodworking outfit--we make cabinets. Some of the simpler machines are nearly as old as the factory but most of them are considerably less. They mostly involve new technology that wasn't even available when we started. I can think of only two steps on the main production line that don't involve at least one computer--and both of those are simple sanding. (And the big sander is one of the oldest machines in the place, also.)

Of the lines that feed the primary line I can think of only one station lacking a computer.

[unrealist42]

I was at a factory a few years ago that makes wooden shutters. The reason they are still in business is because they have a machine that is over 100 years old that mills the pieces and assembles them. It is vastly complicated and fascinating to watch. It is so fast and efficient that no one can compete with them on price. They tell me there is another one in North Carolina and maybe one in Pennsylvania or Ohio, they are not sure, and a few in Canada and one on the west coast somewhere.

This machine would be prohibitively expensive to duplicate these days, even with computers so no one has.

What kind of cabinets do you make?
Are they made mostly with laminates or solid wood?

Do you compete mostly on quality or price point?

[RED DAVE]

More boring than Larry King interviewing Paris Hilton.

Better English than a speech by George Bush.

A better grasp of philosophy than even, gasp, Ayn Rand.

It’s Karl Marx’s doctoral thesis.

The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature.
with an Appendix

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1841/dr-theses/index.htm

Greek philosophy seems to have met with something with which a good tragedy is not supposed to meet, namely, a dull ending. The objective history of philosophy in Greece seems to come to an end with Aristotle, Greek philosophy's Alexander of Macedon, and even the manly-strong Stoics did not succeed in what the Spartans did accomplish in their temples, the chaining of Athena to Heracles so that she could not flee.RED DAVE

[ninewands]

I have to admit that the more time I spend here, the more I realize that I have a very ill-informed take on socialism. So I've come up with some questions with the intention of being educated by the socialists of IIDB.

1a. Is egalitarianism necessary for socialism? For example, could the wealth collected by the state in the form of taxes be distributed to a select group of people with no regard for narrowing the gap between the haves and havenots.
My understanding of socialism is that the socialist state exists to promote a healthy society. Since, IMO, a healthy society is one in which people are treated as equals under the law and in the economy, I would say you are correct.
1b. Is the act of distributing wealth a necessary part of socialism?
I am not certain that redistribution of wealth is a per se requirement of a socialist system. However, since one of the major symptoms of an unhealthy society is extreme concentration of wealth in the hands off the few (i.e., the rich get richer and the poor get poorer) it incumbent upon a "socialist" society to prevent such extreme concentration of wealth. I don't know if that answers your question or not.
2. Does the state have to own all of primary, secondary, and tertiary industries or does it only need to own a significant percentage of those industries?
Not necessarily. What IS necessary is for the state to ensure that whose who own them do not use that ownership to extort so-called "economic profits" (profit in excess over a fair and equitable return on investment) from those who do not.
3a. Is democracy a necessary part of socialism?
It is my opinion that a socialist state MUST be governed democratically if it is to be worth supporting. An economically "right wing" "socialist" state which is NOT governed democratically is a fascist state. An economically "left-wing" "socialist state" which is not governed democratically is a Stalinist state. As Ayn Rand (an author and philopher, of sorts, with whom I do not generally agree) once wrote (I am paraphrasing), "Fascism is the brutality of the thugs, (Soviet-style) communism is the brutality of the intellectuals. Both sorts of regime are equally brutal."
Would a totalitarian regime who did such things as own the nations industries and redistribute weath be a socialist regime?
No, as another poster said, I would consider this regime to be capitalism exercised by the state.
3b. Would a nation where people had democratic control over their workplaces but no democratic rights outside of work be a socialist nation?
I do not believe this is possible, so I would have to say "No." Control of the government by the people is a necessary pre-condition to having a government that is concerned with maximizing the health of society over concentrating economic and political power in the hands of the "favored few."
4. What does a free market mean under socialism?
Show me a truly free market under any form of government and I will be able to answer your question. Such a thing is not possible under a socialist economic system and/or government because regulation would be necessary to control the impulse toward greed by those who own the assets of the economy.
5. Not all socialists are communists, but are all communists socialist?
Ah ... here's the rub. The big bad (according to Americans of the US persuasion) "C-word.' No. In the ideal case, Communism necessarily implies ownership in common of all means of production. Period. It also implies that any and all products and wealth will be distributed according to need and on no other basis. Socialism does not require these extremes, it merely implies that actors within a society not engage in actions inimicable to the well-being of the society. Those whose actions directly result in extraordinary benefit to society should be fairly rewarded for their excess contribution to the well-being of others. Those who contribute less to the growth of society's "wealth" should still have their basic human needs met. In such a society, ones personal wealth would be directly proportional to their personal contribution to the well-being of all, and the inheritance of massive personal fortunes by those who are more or less drains on society (see, e.g., Lauren Hutton, Paris Hilton, etc.) would be a thing of the past. The concentration of political power (which is inevitably abused to increase further personal wealth) in the hands of those who are fortunate (or ruthless) enough to possess large amounts of personal weealth would also be a thing of the past.
6. Is socialism compatible with anarchism?
Sure, why not? I believe that even Thomas Jefferson said, the government that governs best is that which governs least. What it is NOT compatible with is "no-rules" anarchy. That situation inevitably degenerates into mob rule where the individual or group which has the most guns and who is the most ruthless winds up with everything at the expense of the well-being of society.
7. Does socialism necessarily mean having national health service, welfare, and/or other similar programmes?
Yes, why would it not? If the goal is the well-being of society in general how could their NOT be such programs to provide for those least able to pay for human necessities? Should such programs have exclusive control over access to these necessities? Not necessarily. Those able to pay for a "higher standard of care" due to a greater contribution to the well-being of society should be free to do so if they desire (see, e.g., the Australian system).

[RED DAVE]

Less boring than George Bush's sex life.

More boring than Paris Hilton's sex life.

How is your sex life?

If it's boring you need to read:

Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State

Frederick Engels

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/preface.htm

According to the materialistic conception, the determining factor in history is, in the final instance, the production and reproduction of the immediate essentials of life. This, again, is of a twofold character. On the one side, the production of the means of existence, of articles of food and clothing, dwellings, and of the tools necessary for that production; on the other side, the production of human beings themselves, the propagation of the species. The social organization under which the people of a particular historical epoch and a particular country live is determined by both kinds of production: by the stage of development of labor on the one hand and of the family on the other.RED DAVE

[whichphilosophy]

If it's less boring than Paris Hilton's sex life, or simply Paris Hilton's life, I think even some right wingers may decide read this.