• The 34th richest man on Earth to donate $32bn to charity, inspired by the Gates Foundation
    68 replies, posted
[QUOTE=daschnek;48106219]The differences that arise are over how it ought to be implemented (revolution? Should we seize control of the state?) and smaller details of what socialism will look like after it's implemented.[/quote] [quote]Instead of top-down management systems that we see in capitalism, workers collectively decide how the means of production are used.[/quote] Which incidentally has led to the creation of many hundreds of different Socialist groups that continue to fracture and splinter as time goes on. The fact that they are unable to present a unified group with a clear cohesive method of achieving Socialism is perhaps their biggest failing. Workers control of production (if ever) works out in reality. Workers can't decide how to manage a factory. That's what managers are for. If it was more efficient or easier to run a factory with just workers alone, we would see factories without managers. [quote]I'd argue that socialism requires the absence of the state, for the reasons I've already discussed.[/quote] [quote]A source of contention among socialists, but I think the best bet would be [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism"]anarcho-syndicalism.[/URL][/quote] What about Socialist parties that explicitly work within electoral politics? By what means? Where and when? As a system it enjoys little to no popularity among those it claims to lift from their oppression. Very few workers are interested in dismantling capitalism. Most of them usually just want a better deal or their fair share. [quote]Again, most people aren't very well acquainted with it. While you may be a counterexample most people think Socialism is China or the USSR and their knowledge stops there. But it's not just that - socialism has been repressed by the state through propaganda [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Raids"]or more[/URL] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO"]violent means[/URL] since its inception (my examples are just from socialism in the U.S, obviously far more exist from elsewhere).[/QUOTE] And how many people both understand socialism and are still opposed to it? I understand it, and I think by improving my understanding of it, I have found myself in greater opposition to it. This is in spite of the fact it's had two centuries to propagate itself throughout the world and find adherents and people willing to try it out in a diverse range of societies? Is it more likely that a worldwide cabal of capitalists represses the socialists, or that people just don't like socialism all that much as they used to? [editline]2nd July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Conscript;48106392]It isn't really when Marx gave a clear defined what socialism is: a classless, moneyless, stateless society where there is no commodity production or law of value, and the lands and factories are held in common. It's necessarily an international system. Whether it's possible I guess is another story. But it is clear that is what they defined it as, and Stalin explicitly turned around and said classes and the law of value exist in socialism. I'm not sure if it's fair to say that's suddenly 'real socialism', seems like a self-serving argument.[/quote] There is that definition, but I've noticed that in practice that the smaller the Socialist group in question the more it relies heavily on saying "That isn't true Socialism", incidentally reducing the pool of real world examples to point to as instances of Socialism. This also has the effect of saying that a great number of people who call themselves Socialists and believe themselves to be working towards the goals of Socialism are in fact, not socialists at all.
Well, there's always Engels pointing to the Paris commune as an example of the proletarian dictatorship at the very least, I guess. But surely someone like robespierre thought he was building towards liberal, republican goals, yet most modern liberals rebuke him or are even Burkean conservatives. The Haitian revolutionaries fashioned themselves Jacobins but nobody identifies with their tradition. Hell up until recent history you could say liberalism failed in all cases, it never stopped anybody. I don't see the contradiction with liberals not identifying with those models, what's wrong with an anarchist disagreeing with a stalinist's claim to being socialist? Particularly if it really isn't no true scotsman stuff. I mean as a social democrat you're basically that in relation to marxists anyway. You had your split in the second international, too.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48106565] [B]Workers control of production (if ever) works out in reality. Workers can't decide how to manage a factory.[/B] That's what managers are for. If it was more efficient or easier to run a factory with just workers alone, we would see factories without managers.[/QUOTE] Pure assumption, and not even an assumption backed by evidence. If anything, the increased agricultural yield and industrial production of Revolutionary Catalonia should be some kind of hint at how effective worker's self management can be. [QUOTE]What about Socialist parties that explicitly work within electoral politics? [/QUOTE] Parties like Syriza and Podemos are great parties with noble goals in terms of improving people's lives, but even they understand that it takes more than a political party to create a socialist society. [QUOTE]By what means? Where and when? As a system it enjoys little to no popularity among those it claims to lift from their oppression.[/QUOTE] By means of a general strike, wherever and whenever workers are organized and able to do so. Again, a fantastic example of where such a thing could happen is in Spain, where anarcho-syndicalism is still quite popular. [QUOTE]And how many people both understand socialism and are still opposed to it? I understand it, and I think by improving my understanding of it, I have found myself in greater opposition to it.[/QUOTE] I'm sure the number is rather small. While some people may like living in a society where the majority have no say in the day-to-day activities that affect their lives, and that is completely unsustainable due to environmental degradation and resource consumption, most people will stop putting up with it at some point.
[QUOTE=Conscript;48106856]WBut surely someone like robespierre thought he was building towards liberal, republican goals, yet most modern liberals rebuke him or are even Burkean conservatives. The Haitian revolutionaries fashioned themselves Jacobins but nobody identifies with their tradition. Hell up until recent history you could say liberalism failed in all cases, it never stopped anybody.[/quote] Unlike Socialism I suppose, Liberalism has had some major achievements. Britain for instance has had a liberal party rule the country throughout much of the 19th and early 20th centuries, during which it introduced policies (many of which still exist today, or continue in some modified form). Liberalism generally stresses things like freedom of speech, religion, free markets, secularism, civil rights, and democracy. Effectively all of these things are the bedrock of many societies today ranging from Europe to Botswana to India, Japan and Uruguay. [editline]3rd July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=daschnek;48106872]Pure assumption, and not even an assumption backed by evidence. If anything, the increased agricultural yield and industrial production of Revolutionary Catalonia should be some kind of hint at how effective worker's self management can be.[/quote] If you can provide evidence that self-managed enterprises are more productive than privately owned ones I'd be happy to renounce about half of the field of economics [quote]Parties like Syriza and Podemos are great parties with noble goals in terms of improving people's lives, but even they understand that it takes more than a political party to create a socialist society.[/quote] And what of the ones in Venezuela, Cuba, Poland in the 60s, or Federal Yugoslavia? [quote]By means of a general strike, wherever and whenever workers are organized and able to do so. Again, a fantastic example of where such a thing could happen is in Spain, where anarcho-syndicalism is still quite popular.[/quote] And how is a nationwide strike that effectively brings down capitalism to be organised and achieved? How do you know everybody will support it? [quote]I'm sure the number is rather small. While some people may like living in a society where the majority have no say in the day-to-day activities that affect their lives, and that is completely unsustainable due to environmental degradation and resource consumption, most people will stop putting up with it at some point.[/QUOTE] Except Socialist societies are also just as unsustainable as capitalist ones when it comes to resource consumption. Perhaps this is a question best suited to astrophysics or maybe theology?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48106964] If you can provide evidence that self-managed enterprises are more productive than privately owned ones I'd be happy to renounce about half of the field of economics [/QUOTE] Again, see above. At the very least, the successes of the worker-controlled enterprises in Catalonia should hint that worker management is no less effective, if not more effective. Perhaps if capitalist societies didn't have a hard-on for either blowing up or otherwise subverting socialist societies, I'd have more examples to work with. [QUOTE]And what of the ones in Venezuela, Cuba, Poland in the 60s, or Federal Yugoslavia?[/QUOTE] What of them? They're failures, which says nothing of meaning about socialism, for the reasons I've posted about at least three times now. [QUOTE]And how is a nationwide strike that effectively brings down capitalism to be organised and achieved? How do you know everybody will support it?[/QUOTE] [URL="http://libcom.org/files/Rocker%20-%20Anarcho-Syndicalism%20Theory%20and%20Practice.pdf"]Perhaps these questions should be addressed by the man who wrote the definitive work on anarcho-syndicalism. [/URL] [QUOTE]Except Socialist societies are also just as unsustainable as capitalist ones when it comes to resource consumption. Perhaps this is a question best suited to astrophysics or maybe theology?[/QUOTE] I'm curious as to how you reached this conclusion. With the profit motive not existing in socialist societies, there would be no reason to aggressively mine and burn fossil fuels or engage in deforestation and habitat destruction the way existing capitalist societies do now.
[QUOTE=daschnek;48107388]Again, see above. At the very least, the successes of the worker-controlled enterprises in Catalonia should hint that worker management is no less effective, if not more effective. Perhaps if capitalist societies didn't have a hard-on for either blowing up or otherwise subverting socialist societies, I'd have more examples to work with.[/quote] I'm talking about empirical evidence. [quote][URL="http://libcom.org/files/Rocker%20-%20Anarcho-Syndicalism%20Theory%20and%20Practice.pdf"]Perhaps these questions should be addressed by the man who wrote the definitive work on anarcho-syndicalism. [/URL][/quote] Or the arguments can be addressed by you directly. [quote]I'm curious as to how you reached this conclusion. With the profit motive not existing in socialist societies, there would be no reason to aggressively mine and burn fossil fuels or engage in deforestation and habitat destruction the way existing capitalist societies do now.[/QUOTE] Because environmental degradation can occur under Socialism. Assuming that workers self-control of industries becomes a thing, there will be decisions made about whenever or not to cut down trees or strip mine. There would be a reason to strip mine or burn fossil fuels because those resources would be in demand by people. With capitalism? There's nothing stopping governments and companies or private individuals engaging in environmental causes. Environmentalism in itself is becoming trendy and society as a whole is moving away from it. Legal and social change has made it less palatable to engage in the sorts of environmental destruction that was deemed normal a century ago. Socialism itself has tried to benefit from the growing environmentalist movement in recent years by trying to associate the two (with limited success). Beforehand most socialists (especially during the 19th century) didn't give a shit about the environment. The point I'm making is that capitalism or socialism as ideologies are irrelevant to environmentalism in the end. The society must be environmentally aware, and it is possible to preserve the environment in either capitalist or socialist societies.
I wonder what it is like knowing that there are only 33 other people richer than you, and billions not as rich as you.
[QUOTE=Gubbygub;48110812]I wonder what it is like knowing that there are only 33 other people richer than you, and billions not as rich as you.[/QUOTE] It must suck because everyone you meet will be anxious since all rich people are ~evil pyschopats~ or ~fuck, better be nice to him maybe free money~
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;48099038]i certainly wouldn't expect this to come from a saudi prince[/QUOTE] My girlfriend actually lived in saudi for a while and her dad is from there, and from what they tell me princes there live much differently than a normal person. Like normally alcohol is illegal and so is gay sex but princes are able to do basically whatever they want and have access to whatever they want. Her dad's coworker got invited to a game of golf with a saudi prince once and the prince offered to have sex with him casually, so yeah they are very different.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.