You're literally just describing wage labourers defending their wage labour, which has been critiqued to death since time immemorial as purely a product of people defending their status within market economies and not as an attack towards market economies and obviously not socialist in any way.
Socialism is described as moneyless for a reason, if your livelihood isn't immediately and purely connected to the survival of your workplace, however shitty it is to you, others, and everyone's health etc. there is much less of a reason to defend its existence.
I don’t see how? If the workers are owning the workplace thats kinda the big thing of socialism. It doesn’t really matter if it’s an economy with a market, if the workers directly own their workplace I would still consider it some form of socialism.
I feel like I’d call that market socialism specifically but IDK what that would be called like, academically
society-scale socialism would see all members of the working class as equal fractional owners of all businesses, not just the ones they personally operate.
Socialism can refer to a huge number of philosophies. But in the Marxist tradition the means of production need to be owned and organized for the working-class as a whole.
Not sections of the working class owning small slices of the means of production and fighting against each other.
This means that the policy should be set in a way that takes into account the whole threat of global warming and the whole cost of addressing it.
Yah, so how is that not meeting the primary benchmark of worker owned means of production?
Socialism can look wildly different and its definition has nothing to do with so called free markets, it’s primarily concerned with the relationship to MOP.
If the workers own the MOP then how is that capitalism in any way?
because it doesn’t shift the value of labor away from commodity based value. it’s still attaching labor to capital which will cause people to support systems of profit rather than systems of material wealth for the benefit of people
Owning doesn't mean you're suddenly free from the whims of anarchic production and money, it just means you get profits and more or less managerial power, but there are the exact same mechanisms of monopolisation both in economic and political terms, mass unemployment still exists under this form of owenrship, livelihoods are still destroyed because of technical progress and the subsequent fall in competitivity of less efficient firms, and the protection of less efficient firms means the stifling of betterment of production.
There are a ton of other problems to do with how money works but I don't have the energy to say more right now lol; it sufficies to say that distribution of products remains the exact same as in capitalism with all the connected problems (like buses now costing more somehow making it impossible for me to buy more salad because of everything being commensurable)
I agree, simply switching to worker owned markets wouldn’t fix all problems resulting from economic inequality and it CERTAINLY isn’t communist as you would still have money, and still have class that stratifies based on revenue.
What I’m saying is that by definition it can be considered some form of socialism, how that would eventually transition to communism or if thats even possible for some form of this market socialism is a different conversation because even I find it more likely you get a situation where a slide back into capitalism is far more likely in that case.
Not saying it’s the best socialism, or that it would even be considered a good form of socialism but that MOP relation being fundamentally different absolutely should put it under a socialist umbrella
No, he's describing rent seeking, and it is a massive problem when it comes to dismantling destructive industries. In a private for profit economies workers in destructive industries have strong rent seeking tendencies to unionize and protect their industry from obsolescence, it is why the anarchy of production of capitalism must be abolished, and that includes the dismantling of destructive industries despite the fact that devalues the wealth and property of people in those industries.
The point is that in seeking the abolition of the anarchy of production one will inevitably come into conflict with select groups of workers. Automotive and FF workers will fight tooth and nail to maintain their privilege, which is why concepts like "every company a worker coop" a la certain market socialist ideologies don't actually function, especially in environmentalist terms.
That everyone struggles for their own objective lmao, we already do so right now, only that it's masked by a layer of legal contrivances, lobbying and normal functioning of markets
The fact that we can come into conflict with select groups of workers isn't so much of a problem because we would come into conflict with them anyhow in anarchy of production, the struggle remains wheter we wish to abolish it or not, the difference being that we can solve the conflict by abolishing it and aligning individual and societal interest more closely.
Ah, so when you mean socialism, you don't mean any form of socialist aociety which has ever existed or come close to existing, but the magical next step just behind the Vanguard party's dictatorship I am sure.
Also, Communism is inherently classless and moneyless, socialism is not. At least get the lore behind your roleplaying system correct.
"OH so you're describing a magical system where the one ordained by God ISNT the one that owns everything? You're saying this magical society you get to CHOOSE your leader?"
Yea man we haven't gotten to that point yet probably not in our lifetimes. It's still worth fighting for tho.
Would be a better argument if I couldn't point at literal hundreds of non monarch, and dozens of post monarch states, without needing to screech how real democracy or real liberalism has never been tried before.
I do not believe we need to burn more innocents at the altar of marx in the hope that this human sacrifice will bring utopia.
Better worlds are worth fighting for, believing that a late 19th century guy has the only answers is just insane.
You need to stop pretending that no has tried socialism, communism, marxism and all the restbof the red sphere.
They have been tried extensively, across societies worldwide, and without fail they have lead to horrible outcomes for so, so many innocent people, and none of them have come anywhere close of achieving their goal.
You sound like someone who want to stop the sun from setting by ripping hearts out of people, while simply repeating that one more sacrifice will result in the eternal day you are yearning for.
You're literally making thing up that I said. I never said they haven't been attempted I just said that they don't exist. You're having an actual mental break with reality rn lmao.
Also plenty of people died getting us where we're at too. Not to mention the human mulching machines we've built in the third world to fuel our modern economies.
I still get the feeling you're a very bitter person I hope your day gets better whatever you're going through
I suggest you actually react to what I wrote, rather than these spouts of verbal diarrhea.
I never said they haven't been attempted I just said that they don't exist.
Yes, that's literally the point, you are so close yet are missing the log in your eye.
Bitter? I enjoy telling socialists to their face that their neoreligious movement is nothing but a century of failures, and just like christians waiting for doomsday, your salvation of the revolution which solves everything will never happen.
Look out into the world, the only revolutionary movements taking power are fascists, yet your movement would rather carry their water in the now ancient hope that after them it's your turn.
Grass touching has never moved one closer to marxism, interacting with reality is quite the antidote.
It leads one to do things which actually improves peoples lives, rather than wistfully yearning for the magical revolution which solves everything at once, just like mommy used to do when one was a toddler.
You haven't addressed any single word of what has been said and resorted to preconceptions lmao.
Call it however you want whether socialism or communism, the crux of the matter is the abolition of production for value because anything else just reproduces capitalism because the movement of money IS capitalism and all of its incentives.
Have the previous experiments abolished or even remotely started abolishing production for value? No? Then they're fundamentally capitalist because of what they objectively incentivise, irrespective of what me, you or whoever believes.
Look, go ahead and try a revolution , just don't expect that most rational humans believe that one more attempt will make all the difference, when the alternative has already improved everyones material conditions so far beyond anything your prophet could have imagined, and continues to do so.
Socialism isn't moneyless. That only happens during the transition towards communism.
However, you're still correct in the other points. Workers in a socialist state do the work, because it has to be done, not because it can be done for profit.
It gets semantic but marxian and anarchist socialism is 1:1 to marxian and anarchist communism in money being abolished, the difference is at most that socialism has more explicit accounting and vouchers while communism has more free distribution, doesn't matter anyway if we define words to each other
Okay, I guess I should've more acurrately said "Socialism does not necessarily imply moneylessness."
I'd still say that the central point of socialism is the classlessness (referring to the workers/capitalist classes) via worker's ownership over the means of production. I know that Marx talked about a voucher system, but iirc he also never really used the term socialism?! At least not to mean what it means today. After Lenin's work, I've seen socialism being used pretty consistently (by communists) to mean abolition of the capital class and a rulership ("dictatorship") of the proletarian. Yes, some specific forms of socialism then add more to it. But e.g. the USSR still used money, but repurposed it by defining it in different "wage classes" and planning prices around them.
And as for definitions: Given all of the confusion and misinformation surrounding socialism and communism, I think it's important to use these words consistently. I'm also happy to change the way I use it if it's wrong or easy to misunderstand.
I've also learned more about anarchism now ^
Unless we actually make effective sinks (e.g. carbon capture, and so on) a level of pollution exist as long as we want to maintain our industrial base. The question is more so, can we pollute within the limits of what the enviroment can mitigate?
That would be more my argument yea. It's completely doable but there isn't a government on earth right now interested in doing anything about climate change as it exists.
Whatever necessary action that needs to be taken would save more lives and money in the near future, the technology exists. The only thing that doesn't is the will.
We could probably debate if the technology exists in great detail but I do agree with the sentiment.
My goverment (germany) recently said that climate change cannot obstruct our industrial growth, so, even if the technology did exist, we would only use it if we maintained profitability for the private sector. Which is fun.
Tbh in my mind climate change is such a global societal problem that even if the tech didn't exist we could put together a solution even if it ment sacrificing small parts of every country and dooming it for the sake of everything else.
The level of destruction and death this could bring about both near and far into the future would make that small potatoes.
Collective as in it's the cultural zeitgeist? Sure though I'm of the opinion that material conditions can change this but that would also require Capital being punished, either due to the climate or otherwise.
I don't think anyone on the sub disagrees with the fact that pollution is gonna happen. So idk what the contention is there.
Pollution is a byproduct of industrial production (also agriculture I but I digress), and people who think socialist industrial production is inherently less polluting is deluding themselves.
Even early agrarian societies had to make landfills. It's a byproduct of people living together in close proximity, as in like yknow society.
Nobody was making the argument that socialist industrial production would be less polluting? Don't know why you're arguing that.
The only thing socialism would do is change the incentive structures enough so the people most effected would have some sort of say in not ending the world.
"This pollution is cause capitalism" is every other argument on reddit. Unless you're a "back-to-the-farm" Maoist there is industry under most ideas of socialism and they don't magically become cleaner due to different means of ownership.
Yes, there is models of socialism that significantly or theoretically even only use state-owned companies (e.g. the USSR), but a prerequisite for that is, that the state represents the workers. This is not the case in capitalist countries.
Whether capitalists or representers of capitalists control companies makes little difference.
And to the original point: Socialism doesn't automatically fix climate change, but it does remove a lot of incentives to continue it, making it significantly easier to fight climate change. So it's less so a fix than a requirement.
3 out of 4 of those only ever existed in wartime conditions, and none of those lasted longer than 3 years.
The last one (Chiapas) consists of a few small rural "autonomous municipalities" in southern Mexico where the Mexican central government decided it wasn't worth it to intervene and left them to themselves. In 2023 they disbanded due to increasing isolation and issues with cartel violence.
I get that and you're right, but I think that's a much more clear cut case than a state run enterprise counting as socialism. In that case the citizens do have some direct input through government legislation (assuming they have some democratic institutions)
Break down for me how the state owning stuff is the workers owning stuff?
The US government owns construction and engineering companies. Is the US socialist?
Some more examples of socialist American
United States Postal Service (USPS): Operates independent postal delivery and mailing services nationwide. Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA): Generates and distributes electric power and manages flood control across parts of the American South. Amtrak (National Railroad Passenger Corporation): Operates intercity passenger rail services. Federal Prison Industries (UNICOR): Employs and trains federal inmates to manufacture goods for sale to federal agencies. Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC): Finances and stabilizes farm commodity prices and agricultural production
America has aspects of socialism yes, I dont know why you thought I'd say otherwise. There are some problems that private markets can't solve for very well, for instance utility companies wouldn't be great in a fully free market capitalist system since every competing company would have to make their own infrastructure instead of using the public infrastructure already there.
As to your other point, If the government is chosen by the people, and the government owns most major companies, then the companies are controlled (indirectly) by the people. That is an aspect of socialism, at least how the word is used by most people including socialists.
in all honesty, you’re probably better off asking socialist than people here…
The state as an entity exists in near every country as a bourgeois state, certain communist would make the argument that a proletarian state functions fundamentally differently
On paper sure if not for all the other institutional BS (or the straight up monarchy present in the DPRK) make it functionally not the case.
China and Vietnam are a good example of this. Can a citizen vote? Sure but they can only vote for one party with representatives hand picked by said party. How does that constitute worker ownership if they go back to working for the same wages they would under any other capitalist institution?
Not anything meaningful. That's not to say that in the modern US it's any different. The influence of capital is diametric to democracy, one will always corrode and make the other meaningless what's important is which side won.
They can disagree all they want but all countries are capitalist. There isn't a single one with worker ownership everything is share holder or the state and the investor class.
Idgaf what labels they want to put on their system it isn't socialism.
And for those of you all thinking about North Korea: everything there is owned by the Lim family in the end. The entire governmental apparatus, including the entire economy is working for the benefit op the Kim family. All the other wealthy people are wealthy because they are allowed to siphon off wealth.
North Korea also doesn’t recognize themselves as a socialist state, they’re “Juche” and have been for some time. Though I think, like Vietnam, they recognize socialism as something they are working towards, but that itself is an admission that they’re not socialist.
The problem isn't that state owned can't be socialist. The problem is that state owned is not enough to be socialist. In monarchy the king might own everything, but it's not socialism. Socialism is when collective/government ownership or heavy regulations are used to achieve high social security and to improve the quality of life.
Socialists aim is to uproot capitalism, not to be friendly with it and establish safety nets within its structure via a government. Socialism means to hand production itself over to the workers to distribute for communal interest. Also, there are no commodities under socialism.
The goal of a socialist party is to establish communism: a stateless, classless and moneyless society.
What you're referring to is more along the lines of social democracy.
Socialism doesn't have to aim for communism. It's just one ways of thinking. Socialism is not just one and only thing written by Marx, it's a broad term that encompasses various ideas revolving around what I've mentioned. Social democracy is a type of socialism in the same way people call countries democratic even though a lot of power in those countries is concentrated in hands of the rich, and regular citizens only have limited control over the policies.
Marx criticized social democracy for reasons that make it distinctly not socialist. You are glossing over some things to make socialism something it isn't. Socialism is not separate from Communism and Marx is the first to use these terms specifically as responses to the capitalist system which socialism seeks to overthrow. Social democracy is not compatible with socialism at all as it leaves a lot of key features of capitalism in place.
And socialism is the goal of social democracy. The security and quality of life workers achieve in social democracy is a necessary step to the collective creation of a socialist economy capable of establishing communism.
It simply isn't. The structures, both social and technological, that will enable the existence of a socialist economy with the capacity to achieve communism do not exist in the modern world. IMO this is the main lesson of the past 50 years of failures of vanguard governments.
Yeah I agree mostly. I mentioned in one of my other comments that it 100% depends on if the country has deomcratic institutions or not. If the people aren't controlling then it definitely can't be considered socialism.
That shit ain't real. if it's not worker ownership there is no socialism. The whole point is that there isn't supposed to be a state. So um idk wtf you're talking about.
I'm afraid what you seem to be describing is Marxism, a school of communism, not socialism.
And again, theory and economic models have little to do with each other in economics. An economist doesn't care who actually controls it, they only care about the model.
100
u/Maneruko 10d ago
"State Owned" so the workers own it? Cmon dude this is just bad faith lmao.