What is socialism?

[SeniorBen]

I'd like to see broadband access socialized. We pay far to much for that utility which most of us couldn't live without. Obviously, capitalism has failed us in that realm and in pretty much all realms when it comes to essentials. Capitalism works best with luxury items unless it's heavily regulated, or if there is easy entry into the industry and market.

 

[Knight]

Hi Knight. I'm not going to throw guesses and speculation at you. I've been interested in socialism for over 50 years and I can tell you you are correct that socialist society would be class society, and let me explain why and how it works.

First, in socialist ideology, class is not based on money. It is based on one's relationship to the system and forces of production. And it entails "class consciousness". So there is no "upper class" and "lower class" etc. There is the capitalist class because their relationship to production is their ownership of business and their "right" to appropriate profit from their businesses in the capitalist system.

Then there is the class of people the capitalists exploit for their profit: the working class. This includes about 99% of the public. If you're disabled or too old to work or a child, you are still a member of the working class because you have no prospect for using wealth and ownership of a business to put you in the capitalist class, and, all you really have to make a living is your labor, so you sell your labor to the capitalist class. (We can talk about sole proprietorships and small "mom and pop" businesses if you like.) So to move from the working class to the capitalist class a person would have to own a business, but a window washing business would make you no "better" than a member of the working class because you would have no real power to buy government policy and candidates to do your bidding.

Socialism would nationalize select businesses that are critical to national security and it would prioritize worker-owned worker-managed businesses, while at some point (maybe immediately) banning the creation of any new privately-owned businesses for private profit. Existing corporate America and corporate elite would be properly taxed.

I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

I don't think you explained how the socialist system differs from the capitalist system. Maybe an example of what I want to understand would help.

Example
I was raised by working class parents that held jobs in a company employee owned. I had no education beyond 12 years. My only option for employment was to apply for & get a job in production at the same place my parents were employed at.

What would it take or would it be possible for me to go from production worker to some higher paid better position in the company?

Another question
Looking at nationalized businesses. What prevents employees in those from deciding not to comply with a "need" government officials deemed critical to national security?

 

[Warrigal]

I am pretty much illiterate when it comes to economics but I have one or two insights I would like to share.

During the Industrial Evolution in England it was private capital that built the railways and as I understood it, the same thing happened in US. However, in Australia with huge distances to cover and a very small population, railways were built by state governments. No capitalists could see any profit to be had. Today, the Sydney transport system is still a mixture of government and privately owned enterprises.

In early days of aviation Australians were serviced by a combination of commercial and government owned airlines. Today even QANTAS is owned by foreign investors and is no longer our national carrier. Our major banks are also majority owned by foreign capital.

IMO some enterprises should be government owned in the interest of national security

 

[ElCastor]

I'd like to see broadband access socialized. We pay far to much for that utility which most of us couldn't live without. Obviously, capitalism has failed us in that realm and in pretty much all realms when it comes to essentials. Capitalism works best with luxury items unless it's heavily regulated, or if there is easy entry into the industry and market.

Huh? Capitalism has no more to do with universal access to the Net than it has to do with universal access to public education. Pass a law and Capitalist corporations might compete (if asked) to be the lowest cost highest quality supplier of the service.

 

[Senter]

I don't think you explained how the socialist system differs from the capitalist system. Maybe an example of what I want to understand would help.

Example
I was raised by working class parents that held jobs in a company employee owned. I had no education beyond 12 years. My only option for employment was to apply for & get a job in production at the same place my parents were employed at.

What would it take or would it be possible for me to go from production worker to some higher paid better position in the company?

So your parents worked in an employee-owned business. Well, at this time, one of the main ways many are trying to transition to a socialist economy is by creating worker-owned, worker-controlled co-ops (Workers' Self-Directed Enterprises or "WSDEs"). There are some big differences between them and most other types of co-ops, some of which include provisions for workers of WSDEs to hire and fire the CEO and Board members, according to the Articles of Incorporation the CEO's pay is typically set to 7 or 8 times the lowest-paid worker, and workers vote on what to do with the profits, and much more. But regarding workers moving up the ladder in the business, the workers typically vote for workers who would serve as managers and Board members with qualified workers rotating through these positions with appropriate pay scale, and the managers promote workers if that is how workers want promotions handled. Or the workers can vote on a different arrangement or system. It's their company. So the point is to design the business, which is usually the LLC legal structure, in a way that promotes workers' democratic collective control of it, from hiring to vacations, pay scale, right through to deciding what to do with the profits. And therefore yes, a pathway would be created for workers to qualify for higher progressively positions with commensurate pay raises much like we find in our current capitalist system in all probability.

Right now Cuba is transitioning government-operated activities and businesses to worker co-ops as part of the continuing process of building socialism.

Another question
Looking at nationalized businesses. What prevents employees in those from deciding not to comply with a "need" government officials deemed critical to national security?

If I understand your question, I would answer that we have "businesses" now that are operated by government, like the State Bank of North Dakota, Social Security, Medicare, the FBI, the CIA, and many more. Any problem you could imagine has probably been handled by such agencies/businesses (for lack of a better term). But maybe I'm not understanding your question.

 

[Knight]

@Senter
Quote
"If I understand your question, I would answer that we have "businesses" now that are operated by government, like the State Bank of North Dakota, Social Security, Medicare, the FBI, the CIA, and many more. Any problem you could imagine has probably been handled by such agencies/businesses (for lack of a better term). But maybe I'm not understanding your question."

You didn't understand. I guess to clarify I don't consider Social Security, Medicare, the FBI, the CIA as businesses. I view those as a result of needs developed over the years that are paid for by taxes. A business that would impact security could be like utility industries.

I'll use an example.
A electrical utility tied into a national grid could include several utility companies. In the middle of winter thousands of miles of transmission lines collapse due to severe weather. That leaves the northern tier with 50 million people out of power with temps below zero. The union employees of power companies all part of that national grid don't show up to make needed repairs. The union decided they want better pay & benefits because of the severe conditions they have to work in.

Because they too want more, the same union employees of the generation stations that have been damaged due to transmission lines collapsing causing the generation stations to shut down won't begin damage repair.

That is extreme I know but as an example an extreme is needed in order for me to understand what action the government would take under a socialist system.

 

[Senter]

@Senter
Quote
"If I understand your question, I would answer that we have "businesses" now that are operated by government, like the State Bank of North Dakota, Social Security, Medicare, the FBI, the CIA, and many more. Any problem you could imagine has probably been handled by such agencies/businesses (for lack of a better term). But maybe I'm not understanding your question."

You didn't understand. I guess to clarify I don't consider Social Security, Medicare, the FBI, the CIA as businesses. I view those as a result of needs developed over the years that are paid for by taxes. A business that would impact security could be like utility industries.

I'll use an example.
A electrical utility tied into a national grid could include several utility companies. In the middle of winter thousands of miles of transmission lines collapse due to severe weather. That leaves the northern tier with 50 million people out of power with temps below zero. The union employees of power companies all part of that national grid don't show up to make needed repairs. The union decided they want better pay & benefits because of the severe conditions they have to work in.

Because they too want more, the same union employees of the generation stations that have been damaged due to transmission lines collapsing causing the generation stations to shut down won't begin damage repair.

That is extreme I know but as an example an extreme is needed in order for me to understand what action the government would take under a socialist system.

Yes, I understand your choice of extreme examples. I often do the same to make principles clear.

I felt SS, Medicare, the FBI and such were problematical too. That is why I started the list with a state bank, but your example, though hypothetical, makes it clear. Thanks.

As I often say in reply to questions about how it might work, I'll tell you that any transition to socialism would be gradual and address issues that would provide needed relief to Americans, first. And BTW, I fully expect based on history and sentiment among socialists, that unions would be encouraged and protected because it is in the interest of the working class.

So in fact, the answer to your question would be "how are such situations handled now?" One thing that would NOT be done would be any kind of punishment of unions. But think about this: studies show that when private profit is taken out of the equation, wages go significantly up, prices come down, and productivity increases by about 14% in studies of worker co-ops. Higher wages mean increased sense of fairness and satisfaction, and that is why studies find higher productivity and other metrics increasing. Also, the workers may be justified in receiving a "situational increase" in pay if conditions are difficult. Remember, socialism would be guided and determined and run by the working class or it isn't socialism.

One of the first tasks of socialist, and it's happening now, is to sort out the role of government and methods of ensuring that the government is irrevocably dedicated to the workers and people.

Thanks for the question and clarification.

 

[Knight]

One of the first tasks of socialist, and it's happening now, is to sort out the role of government and methods of ensuring that the government is irrevocably dedicated to the workers and people.

Thanks for the question and clarification.

I'm beginning to understand your position in believing it's possible to convert the American capitalist system to a socialist system. It sounds like conversion would be possible if everyone held the same belief that a socialist society will solve the myriad of problems. Your post seems to indicate that conversion is happening now.

So I'll ask.

Can you give examples of sorting out the role of government that is happening now ? I'm having a difficult time wrapping my head around the ability to insure government being irrevocably dedicated to the workers and people.

I noticed you separated workers & people. What criteria will be used to identify that difference? What will be the role of government in addressing the needs of those people?

 

[Senter]

I'm beginning to understand your position in believing it's possible to convert the American capitalist system to a socialist system. It sounds like conversion would be possible if everyone held the same belief that a socialist society will solve the myriad of problems. Your post seems to indicate that conversion is happening now.

So I'll ask.

Can you give examples of sorting out the role of government that is happening now ? I'm having a difficult time wrapping my head around the ability to insure government being irrevocably dedicated to the workers and people.

It is happening in many countries in small groups of socialists, theoreticians, and ideologues. Socialism has been reduced to a very small fraction of what it once was and is beginning to rebuild due to the conditions we're all facing.

The first issue regarding the state will be its role in the transition of power. Once the state is held by socialists there will be a need for reforming and reshaping the state to establish it and to keep it in the service of the people rather than capital.

Since the socialist community is very small, the question is just beginning to be debated. It is often just being raised as something to sort out as we see HERE.

Sometimes the history of the socialist principles and experiences of the state is reviewed to begin directing our focus to the subject as it is HERE.

In one of his videos Dr. Richard Wolff talks about Marx having never gotten around to developing the role of the state before he died, and so as Wolff says, the role must be sorted out and the absence of such a developed analysis significantly contributed to the downfall of previous attempts to establish socialism as we saw in the USSR and China.

Too many people think the events we saw in the USSR and China indicate the way socialism "must" proceed, and nothing could be further from the truth, so I like to mention the need for a more developed understanding of the role of the state.

I noticed you separated workers & people. What criteria will be used to identify that difference? What will be the role of government in addressing the needs of those people?

I only made that "distinction" in order to be all-inclusive. When the working class is mentioned, so people worry about the rest of the population who doesn't work. Sometimes they're worried that the elderly will be killed off or ignored, and similar for the disabled. So I say "workers and the people". Fact is that 99% of the population only have their ability to work and sell their labor power to provide for themselves and their families. They don't own sufficient capital to start a business and they really don't have the interest or psychology for it. So they can be employees even if they aren't employed. So they are of the working CLASS.

A socialist government will focus on serving the working class which means about 99% of the people. Of course that doesn't mean polling each person and trying to give each what they may want or say they need. Rather, it means providing for the inherent class needs and goals of the people, which means suppressing and ultimately eliminating the capitalists' class needs and goals and that which feeds their motivations, which is profit.

 

[ElCastor]

A socialist government will focus on serving the working class which means about 99% of the people. Of course that doesn't mean polling each person and trying to give each what they may want or say they need. Rather, it means providing for the inherent class needs and goals of the people, which means suppressing and ultimately eliminating the capitalists' class needs and goals and that which feeds their motivations, which is profit.

As soon as you find a country that implements your fantasized socialist goals please let us know. Meantime please excuse me if I don’t hold my breath waiting for a day that will never come.

 

[Knight]

@Senter
I really am trying to understand your position. As you can easily see, I read your posts & question the content.

In the 1st paragraph in response to my
"Your post seems to indicate that conversion is happening now."

you wrote this.
Quote
" Socialism has been reduced to a very small fraction of what it once was and is beginning to rebuild due to the conditions we're all facing."

Questions
1. Why has socialism been reduced to a very small fraction of what it once was?
2. In your perception. What conditions are we all facing?

That as a response doesn't seem like you believe it is happening.

Quote
"When the working class is mentioned, so people worry about the rest of the population who doesn't work. Sometimes they're worried that the elderly will be killed off or ignored, and similar for the disabled."

Thats a pretty broad statement. Is there a reliable non biased factual report/article available to read?

This last paragraph.
Quote
"In one of his videos Dr. Richard Wolff talks about Marx having never gotten around to developing the role of the state before he died, and so as Wolff says, the role must be sorted out and the absence of such a developed analysis significantly contributed to the downfall of previous attempts to establish socialism as we saw in the USSR and China."

Why do you think major population countries haven't been successful in implementing fully socialized country's

Please don't refer me to articles, I'd like your thoughts on that.

 

[SeniorBen]

As soon as you find a country that implements your fantasized socialist goals please let us know. Meantime please excuse me if I don’t hold my breath waiting for a day that will never come.

A 100% socialistic economy is an economy of the future... maybe 100 years from now. None of us alive today will still be here when it comes to pass, but we can't continue on the current path to destruction of society and of the planet and expect it to survive. Unless the wealthy suddenly become altruistic and act in ways that benefit society, socialism is the only solution.

 

[Knight]

A 100% socialistic economy is an economy of the future... maybe 100 years from now. None of us alive today will still be here when it comes to pass, but we can't continue on the current path to destruction of society and of the planet and expect it to survive. Unless the wealthy suddenly become altruistic and act in ways that benefit society, socialism is the only solution.

That makes sense.
I'm of the opinion that 100 years from now earth's resources will have been depleted at least 30 years before that population 100 years from now. I think those still alive won't have the same luxury of wasting resources. What I believe. In 70 years or less mankind will have been reduced in population because food supply, land area for farming & resources to maintain the billions that are alive now won't be available. I can almost picture a primitive way of life where socialism is the key to any survival.

I don't have factual evidence it's just me looking at what I see happening now & projecting that as an opinion.

 

[ElCastor]

A 100% socialistic economy is an economy of the future... maybe 100 years from now. None of us alive today will still be here when it comes to pass, but we can't continue on the current path to destruction of society and of the planet and expect it to survive. Unless the wealthy suddenly become altruistic and act in ways that benefit society, socialism is the only solution.

Free enterprise, free speech, democracy, and a competitive capitalist economy have gotten us to where we are, which ain’t that bad. If socialism is down our path, so be it, but keep in mind that socialism has led several countries and many people down a dark and dreadful path, so be careful of what you wish for.

 

[Senter]

I'd like to see broadband access socialized. We pay far to much for that utility which most of us couldn't live without. Obviously, capitalism has failed us in that realm and in pretty much all realms when it comes to essentials. Capitalism works best with luxury items unless it's heavily regulated, or if there is easy entry into the industry and market.

Agreed. And most media. And basic phone service. And healthcare. And energy.

 

[Knight]

@Senter

Where did you go? I was hoping for a response to my post 186.

 

[SeniorBen]

Free enterprise, free speech, democracy, and a competitive capitalist economy have gotten us to where we are, which ain’t that bad. If socialism is down our path, so be it, but keep in mind that socialism has led several countries and many people down a dark and dreadful path, so be careful of what you wish for.

Pick your best example where socialism led down a "dark and dreadful" path and let's take a look at what happened.

 

[Senter]

@Senter

Where did you go? I was hoping for a response to my post 186.

I keep coming back here to check for replies and I see the little bell in the top right corner of my screen and it shows no new replies.... -no red number, ... nothing. So I've been moving on. Today I scrolled down even though there is no alerts to new messages, and I find several new posts. So something isn't working!!

I'll be right back with a reply for you, Knight. -and probably others too.

 

[Knight]

I keep coming back here to check for replies and I see the little bell in the top right corner of my screen and it shows no new replies.... -no red number, ... nothing. So I've been moving on. Today I scrolled down even though there is no alerts to new messages, and I find several new posts. So something isn't working!!

I'll be right back with a reply for you, Knight. -and probably others too.

Thanks I appreciate when something of interest is discussed & points of view can be questioned.

 

[Senter]

@Senter
I really am trying to understand your position. As you can easily see, I read your posts & question the content.

In the 1st paragraph in response to my
"Your post seems to indicate that conversion is happening now."

you wrote this.
Quote
" Socialism has been reduced to a very small fraction of what it once was and is beginning to rebuild due to the conditions we're all facing."

Questions
1. Why has socialism been reduced to a very small fraction of what it once was?
2. In your perception. What conditions are we all facing?

Good questions.
1. In the early 1900s there was a very large and powerful communist party as well as a socialist party. And as hard times were developing and public outcry was increasing, the government began attacking labor unions, the socialist and communists and turning the Pinkertons loose to launch armed attacks on them. The communist party, and probably the socialist party as well, were infiltrated by government agents with orders to gain leadership and then basically disable the party. Gus Hall, in particular, has been named as a government and FBI agent. Under his "leadership" CPUSA shrank to a shadow of what it had been.

Propaganda was continuously developed and spread, then the threat of Soviet communism showed up and propaganda increased. Propaganda regarding socialism has so confused the American people as to effectively disarm them and turn most into propaganda centers for anyone daring to mention the subject. Few people know what socialism is today. Then in August of 1971 former Justice Powell wrote the now "famous" Powell Memorandum which laid out the "plan" for countering the left, overwhelming them with propaganda, think tanks, etc. etc. etc. It's quite an eye-opener and I recommend looking it up and reading as much as is available about it.

During that time an enormous amount has been done to discourage union membership, causing membership to fall from about 25% of the workforce to 7%. And with all these combined efforts and much more, politics of interest to the working class have been rendered a confused tangle of anti-left propaganda.

2. Conditions we're facing creating an interest in rebuilding consideration for socialism:

We've had a series of worsening economic and other crises that more and more people are finding to be entirely resistant to efforts by "the powers that be" to correct them. They include an increasing share of national income going to the top 1%, out-of-control wealth and income disparity, healthcare being twice as expensive as in the next most expensive country, highest drug prices, education in decline, more incarcerations per capita than any other country, global warming, polarizing media, racism/white supremacy/Nazism, mindless gun proliferation including assault-style weapons designed specifically to kill people, privatization of prisons, privatization of the USPS, homelessness, crippling student debt and college costs, irrational campaign finance laws, unpopular abortion laws, out-of-control defense spending, destructive use of social media, etc. etc. etc.

Quote
"When the working class is mentioned, so people worry about the rest of the population who doesn't work. Sometimes they're worried that the elderly will be killed off or ignored, and similar for the disabled."

Thats a pretty broad statement. Is there a reliable non biased factual report/article available to read?

I was referring to my own experience in getting replies and objections when I have mentioned "the working class" and having some people think I was only interested in, and concerned for, people who have a job. So I was "preempting" such a possible concern.

This last paragraph.
Quote
"In one of his videos Dr. Richard Wolff talks about Marx having never gotten around to developing the role of the state before he died, and so as Wolff says, the role must be sorted out and the absence of such a developed analysis significantly contributed to the downfall of previous attempts to establish socialism as we saw in the USSR and China."

Why do you think major population countries haven't been successful in implementing fully socialized country's

Please don't refer me to articles, I'd like your thoughts on that.

Ok. But I have to reflect my past investigations, readings, inquiries, etc. because that's where my views on it come from.

So in reality I believe you have all the knowledge to see and know the answer but you just haven't put it together. That, I believe, is true for most people. So I'd like to see if I can remind you of things you know to sort of lead you to your own conclusions, if you don't mind.

First, relying on common sense and logic, I think we can all understand that with a change so grand and sweeping as one that eliminates an economy based on producing personal income or profit, whether it is making a living from farming, or owning a business, and replacing it with a completely different kind of economy based on collective work for the benefit of the collective with a ban on private profit, and with all the laws that would be needed and the transformation of agencies and government structure needed, it would require a well-developed insight in to what it all needs to become, how to proceed, which issues to address first, and how to keep it all on track and would take time. It couldn't and shouldn't be done "overnight". And keep in mind that there are always plenty of people who secretly want to stop the progress and turn it all around to some form of privatization of the system for personal gain: reactionaries. And they already have extensive experience in a functioning society that the socialist are trying to eliminate by replacing it with something unknown, undeveloped, or they want to create a similar but more "modern" such society of private personal opportunities.

Add to that the difficulties of sorting out an effective process of creating socialism among sincere socialist, each with different concerns and ideas of what would work best when what's being created has never existed, there's no guide for it, and conditions to be addressed are specific to the one country you're living in. So it's all uncharted territory. And there are immediate serious issues needing to be addressed yesterday.

Capitalism took about 300 years to go from the first privately-owned blacksmith shop in town with an employee, to the first nation whose economy was based on private ownership of business for private profit. This is because of all the things, some of which I just listed, that need to be sorted out and resolved and codified and mastered.

Socialism has been attempted in some form for a little over 100 years I believe. And like capitalism, it is a "trial-and-error" process. The role of the state in organizing the transformation and in running the economy afterward has not yet been worked out sufficiently to allow us to say a plan or description has been roughed out. So with that summary, your question was why the implementation of socialism hasn't been successful yet.

In Russia, Lenin noted that the country was largely agrarian and backward..... --undeveloped in terms of industry. So in his "New Economic Program" he recommended that the new state machinery take ownership of existing activities, both farming and industrial, and run them by means of government managers overseeing them. He noted that since this would not change the relationship of worker to boss, employer to employee, it wouldn't actually be socialism. He called it "state capitalism" and said that the downside would be that at some time in the future after Russia was developed industrially and technology was sufficiently advanced, there would have to be another revolution to make the transition to socialism.

As this process proceeded over the years, mistakes were made and opportunists gained control and pushed the USSR into increasing private ownership of business, resulting in the wealthy oligarchs they have today. So now Russia has reverted to capitalism and will need a full, new revolution one day.

In China, under Mao, the Gang of Four emerged and began working to drift from the socialist path and create capitalism, and they succeeded.

Marx actually said the country that would be developed to the point of being ripe for transition to socialism would be the industrial giant of the USA. The idea of an agrarian economy skipping the developmental stage of capitalism and jumping straight into socialism was unreasonable in Marx's mind, though he said that after a few industrialized countries made the change first and successfully, agrarian economies could then make the leap because of the successful examples available for all to learn from.

WHEW!!! I didn't know this post would be so long! Sorry! But you asked and I wanted to give more than talking points and sound bytes.

 

[ElCastor]

Pick your best example where socialism led down a "dark and dreadful" path and let's take a look at what happened.

I could supply substantiation of the murder of hundreds of millions in the name of Socialism and Communism by Lenin, Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, and North Korea, but we both know that you will just have some excuse. However, if you would like I will be glad to supply the links. BTW, the old rationalization that socialism will get it right the next time won't work on me, so don't bother.

​

 

[SeniorBen]

I could supply substantiation of the murder of hundreds of millions in the name of Socialism and Communism by Lenin, Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, and North Korea, but we both know that you will just have some excuse. However, if you would like I will be glad to supply the links. BTW, the old rationalization that socialism will get it right the next time won't work on me, so don't bother.

​

None of those leaders murdered anyone in the name of socialism. They murdered because they were brutal dictators.

 

[ElCastor]

Sigh, their victims, millions of them, were murdered because they were perceived to be members of a class opposed to Socialism. An old friend and coworker, a Cambodian who as a child escaped the murder crews of his countries Socialist dictatorship, explained to me that merely wearing wearing a ring or eyeglasses could mark you as Middle Class, and therefor an opponent of socialism, which meant certain death.

 

[Pepper]

Mao famously said "Kill the Landlords" and actually had good reasons to, IMO. They were brutal in their treatment of their tenants. What's a person supposed to do when they get the chance.....just make nice? The problem is lies in continuing the killing after winning the war.........that's when it's time to make nice.

 

[Paco Dennis]

It seems Senter is posting about what the possibilities of a society based around the laborers being in control of their lives. That is not what happened in Nazi Germany. Socialism IS an important issue to contemplate as many countries face hardship and are turning to authoritarianism, which has many forms. In our country we are terribly divided on basic principles of how our democracy works. Some have thought these divisions are so strong that violence/civil war could erupt. At this point most all countries have socialist and capitalism/democracy mixtures. I think that we need civil discussion on this mixture at this time in our history. No country is going to become a utopia. That is pie in the sky. Only dreamers think that life will be a utopia someday. No, we need to quite throwing our opinions at each other....( just like I just did ). Complex, No?