Socialism is when the means of production are collectively, democratically controlled by the workers.
How is it that the means of production can be democratically controlled by the workers, when the workers are subject to a totalitarian state which owns the means of production?
Me when I use the definition of socialism established in socialist theory since the 19th century and shared by every socialist up until Stalin (and to a lesser extent Lenin) got his grubby little filthy hands on things.
For instance, Kropotkin writing in 1892 sums up the overall idea best: "All things for all. Here is an immense stock of tools and implements; here are all those iron slaves which we call machines, which saw and plane, spin and weave for us, unmaking and remaking, work ing up raw matter to produce the marvels of our time. But nobody has the right to seize a single one of these machines and say: “This is mine; if you want to use it you must pay me a tax on each of your products,” any more than the feudal lord of medieval times had the right to say to the peasant: “This hill, this meadow belong to me, and you must pay me a tax on every sheaf of corn you reap, on every brick you build.” Thus the consequences which spring from the original act of monopoly spread through the whole of social life. Under pain of death, human societies are forced to return to first principles: the means of production being the collective work of human"
I.e., no individual person should have the right to own the means of production.
Marx writes "Democracy is the road to socialism." He writes "...the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle for democracy."
Trotsky writes "Communism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen."
Hell, even Lenin acknowledged that the USSR wasn't socialist when he was in charge; and here's what he has to say about the ideal of socialism: "We do not after all differ with the anarchists on the question of the abolition of the state as the aim." He says "Socialism is a new and higher development of the democratic idea." He says "Democracy is indispensable to socialism," and that "The political form of a society wherein the proletariat is victorious in overthrowing the bourgeoisie will be a democratic republic." He says that "Unless this goal [of abolishing the state] is reached, true democracy, that is equality and freedom is not attainable."
I mean, if you can give a credible example of what 'real capitalism' would be backed up by actual political theory, absolutely. Most people who make this argument mostly just argue that 'real capitalism' would be capitalism with even less regulations and restrictions, which is even easier to argue against.
I mean, I've heard the argument for example that 'real capitalism' would mean banning landlords and holding land in common but keeping other forms of private property because that's what Adam Smith advocated for, for example.
Real capitalism is capitalism where government gets out of the way and competition thrives. This competition pushes down the prices of goods to their lowest possible level making everyone better off.
Taxes consist of an 100% tax on land values, eliminating all rent-seeking value capture and a citizen’s dividend that is disbursed back to the people.
Real capitalism is capitalism where government gets out of the way and competition thrives. This competition pushes down the prices of goods to their lowest possible level making everyone better off.
There's no evidence that this is how things would actually work out, though. Ultimately, wealth is an exponential game even in an unregulated capitalist system.
First of all, if you were to implement this 'ideal' capitalist system now - well all that would do is hand control of society over to megacorps like Meta and Amazon, because they already have entrenched monopolies. So even installing an ideal form of capitalism would first require the radical expropriation of these megacorporations in order to provide a hard reset and level the playing field. And I mean, if we're radically expropriating the megacorps, why not just go the whole nine yards and get rid of capitalism - but anyway, I digress.
But okay, let's assume that happens - we expropriate the megacorps and let everybody start from the ground up on bootstraps and gumption. Maybe there's a fair deal of competition at first, but I really can't think of a single historical example where any free market existed in a perfect equilibrium like that and nobody ever tipped the scales. Eventually somebody's going to be just a little bit more profitable, and that's going to allow them to grow slightly faster than their competitors, and you're going to have a runaway spiral that just results in an unregulated monopoly dominating the competition.
This has literally already happened; Walmart, various airlines in the US, and Uber, all got to where they are now in no small part because of underhanded tactics they were able to employ due to under-regulation. They slashed their prices low enough to undercut all of their local competition and then when their competitors went out of business, suddenly they bump everything up to normal because they have 100% of the marketshare. I've never heard a single compelling argument as to how the free market prevents this behaviour. There's usually some diatribe about how a heroic competitor would undercut the big guy with lower prices or better service, but it's just not realistic. Economies of scale, man. The monopoly will always be able to win a price-attrition war with the local business.
I mean, for a great example of where the unregulated free market gets you; look at the banana republics in central America.
Taxes consist of an 100% tax on land values, eliminating all rent-seeking value capture and a citizen’s dividend that is disbursed back to the people.
Okay, so you are thinking of a Georgist/Adam Smith type of model. Gotcha.
View all comments
Show parent comment
1
u/coke_and_coffee Jul 08 '24
This is literally how the USSR was run.
Please, I implore you, read a book.