Let's talk about Socialism

Seeing the Politics thread has been closed, much like our current Australian democracy. So perhaps we could politely discuss progress in our Nation that can bring equality and fairness to all.

So “Let’s talk about Socialism”

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system. “Social ownership” may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.

There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them. They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.

A socialist economy is based on the principle of production for use, to directly satisfy economic demand and human needs, and objects are valued by their use-value, as opposed to the principle of production for profit and accumulation of capital. In the traditional conception of a socialist economy, coordination, accounting and valuation are performed in kind (using physical quantities), by a common physical magnitude, or by a direct measure of labour-time in place of financial calculation. For distributing output, two alternative principles have been proposed: to each according to his contribution and from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. The advisability, feasibility and exact way of allocating and valuing resources are the subjects of the socialist calculation debate.

The socialist political movement includes a diverse array of political philosophies. Core dichotomies include reformism versus revolutionary socialism, and state socialism versus libertarian socialism. State socialism calls for the nationalisation of the means of production as a strategy for implementing socialism, while libertarian socialism calls for decentralized means of direct democracy such as libertarian municipalism, citizens’ assemblies, trade unions, and workers’ councils coming from a general anti-authoritarian stance. Democratic socialism highlights the central role of democratic processes and political systems and is usually contrasted with non-democratic political movements that advocate socialism. Some socialists have adopted the causes of other social movements, such as environmentalism, feminism and liberalism.

1 Like

Good luck with this one :slight_smile:

I was wondering why no one was commenting in the politics thread, hadn’t been in there for a few days so hadn’t noticed it closed.

Did you ever read the “Valve New Employee Handbook”? (easily found in Google). Described how the workers there pretty much control what is done - employees gravitate to the projects least likely to ensure success, pay is determined by the workers, etc.

The extent they took it to could really only work with a company like Valve, where they have the best. It describes a truly participatory organisation where everyone is assumed equal and their value is determined by the quality of their ideas/input.

I’m personally of the belief all organisations should work in a modified version of this. We talk about our “corporate leaders” but they aren’t leaders, they are dictators. I’d love a system where the workers owned the organisation and all had a part in deciding it’s direction. Leaders would still be there to come up with the vision, but in the end the workers decide whether to follow it or not, and success or failure rests on everyones shoulders.

I’ve done a bit of reading on some alternative systems - parecon, various anarchic theories, etc. I’m not sold on the value of revolution to bring about this change. I think the best way to make this change is at the roots level - get more groups starting up co-ops, visionary employers creating equity schemes and getting true worker involvement, etc. Have organisational success determined by the quality of the organisation not the power of its capital.

Why did the politics thread close? I’m not surprised, but what pushed things over the edge?

Quoted Post

Why did the politics thread close? I'm not surprised, but what pushed things over the edge?

Was it the commie bastards?

1 Like

Quoted Post

Quoted Post
Why did the politics thread close? I'm not surprised, but what pushed things over the edge?

Was it the commie bastards?

And one bloated capitalist running dog of the imperialists.

I’m not convinced socialism can work in larger economies…maybe towns, communities etc, but there comes a point where there are too many inequalities between different sub-economies to do anything but a controlled capitalism…controlled by taxation.

And we’d have to bring back capital punishment to eradicate the cheats and the tax lawyers and tax accountants…but I repeat myself. And finally catch up with the bastards who caused the GFC - the merchant banks and the ratings agencies.

Quoted Post

Quoted Post
Quoted Post
Why did the politics thread close? I'm not surprised, but what pushed things over the edge?

Was it the commie bastards?

And one bloated capitalist running dog of the imperialists.

I’m not convinced socialism can work in larger economies…maybe towns, communities etc, but there comes a point where there are too many inequalities between different sub-economies to do anything but a controlled capitalism…controlled by taxation.
And we’d have to bring back capital punishment to eradicate the cheats and the tax lawyers and tax accountants…but I repeat myself. And finally catch up with the bastards who caused the GFC - the merchant banks and the ratings agencies.


I know I’m completely misrepresenting you here, but I find it funny that so many criticisms of socialism go along the line of “socialism may have this problem of x so we will instead stick with the system that we KNOW has problem x

The major problem with capitalism is that it place value in an abstract unit of currency that comes to have more value than individual people. Individual human beings are continually screwed over by whats profitable.

I fail to see how this can be resolved or even bettered by a system that places similar value on a nebulous generalization like “society.”

The next step in human evolution is a civilization that empowers every individual to their fullest capability and progresses from the ground up from these empowered individuals.

Society and Capital are both false idols more useful in selling the majority on a the minority powerclass should get to make decisions for everyone else. Both are excuses to undervalue individual human lives.

I’m pretty sure this is evidenced by every attempt to run a civilization based on either method.

I agree with how socialism analyses how our current capitalist society works, but I don’t agree with the solution. I’m going to be a bit simplistic, but I believe humans are selfish creatures. What happens when people don’t pull their weight? Will people really want to work for the benefit of others apart from their families?

Also, IIRC, socialism is not completely in favour of the democratic process as we don’t necessarily know what’s best for us. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong, I just remember comming across this in an ideology subject at uni a few years ago, but can’t for the life of me remember who actually claimed this or the exact details.

The “pull our weight” issue is a capitalist argument against socialism, ignoring that many people under a capitalist society are born with a million dollars and do ■■■■ all for anyone. or born with nothing and need to be carried because it’s cheaper than letting them clog up the streets with their corpses, or talk ■■■■ to make money and again don’t “pull their weight”.

The real issue with capitalism is maybe people want to pull their weight in directions that aren’t profitable. The inherent lie to justify capitalism is that everyone gets rewarded for their ability and/or work ethic which is demonstrably untrue.

The issue with socialism is what if an indivdual decides they want to pull their weight in a direction that isn’t deemed in the “best interests of society” and who gets to do the deeming.

No easy answer and this is somewhat due to humans being all different with different needs and wants, and varying morals.

Perhaps it is a question of the individual versus the common good.

Some hate my football analogy, but life for me is very much a footy club, and while you can have great and talented individual players, unless they play and work together for the common good then there will be no success.

Socialism has many forms and can be democractic, but given the Government we have currently elected, maybe democracy is not that perfect.

Quoted Post

Perhaps it is a question of the individual versus the common good.

where “common good = what those in power can sell as the common good to everyone else?”

the problem with your football club is a football club has a common goal outside of pleasing the individual members. A measurable objective goal of winning the competition as often as possible. This is fairly simply defined as opposed to “winning human existence”.

capitalism and socialism are great ways for a small group of people to decide what the value of everyone else lives are to the cause but not great ways of adding value to the most number of peoples lives. Eg. is everyone at the football club as happy as the players are and receives the rewards the players do? or are there a lot of people who work just as hard but have to be content with knowing their side is winning even if they get nothing tangible from the wins.

Both capitalism and socialism have historically required public education systems that teach the moral value of following the rules instead of valuing yourself. Work hard all your life and you’ll be rewarded with a warm fuzzy helpful feeling and the knowledge that you didn’t cause problems for the important decision makers.

The only actual capitalist countries are more commonly referred to as “failed states”.

After that, we’re just talking about degrees of socialism. Which makes right-wingers in America so funny with their diatribes against “it”.

Quoted Post

The only actual capitalist countries are more commonly referred to as “failed states”.

After that, we’re just talking about degrees of socialism. Which makes right-wingers in America so funny with their diatribes against “it”.

i think this is because capitalism and scoialism are both lies to sell the same system which is really “get the largest amount of people to put up with very little reward by implying we’re all in this together.”

whether it’s “fair competion for currency” or “the greatest good” or “1 vote each means we all have an equal say” or “it’s the way god wants it” doesn’t really matter, it’s all just a sales pitch and whoever’s in charge will use a little of this and a little of that to get their sale. which is is “I should be the boss because…”

When one ideology or another is willing to create the largest number of the greatest thinkers and hold up to their scrutiny then I’ll stand up and take notice. Which group teaches kids which line of bullshit to get everyone else to follow along really doesn’t interest me.

Socialism isn’t a system though it’s just a concept. There are a bunch of theoretical implementations of socialism, many of which address the issues raised by free spirit and bomber_girl. It’s not just Marxism and “socialist” Russia or Cuba…

Quoted Post

The only actual capitalist countries are more commonly referred to as “failed states”.

After that, we’re just talking about degrees of socialism. Which makes right-wingers in America so funny with their diatribes against “it”.

My 2 bobs worth.
David Graeber, a writer I admire immensely, argues that basic communism (each according to capacities and needs) provides the stability and security necessary for effective social and economic relationships and is fundamental to all working social systems, historical and modern. Look at the outrage that the recent threat to water down our basically socialist health system has engendered. Medicare is about as communistic as we get and most want to keep it that way because it provides a communal sense of security and stability against the threat of ill health.
Graeber also writes “The surest way to know that one is in the presence of communistic relations is that not only are no accounts taken, but it would be considered offensive, or simply bizarre, to even consider doing so.” I’ve worked in supposedly incentive based environments and even there I found people regularly went out of their way to help others and if you said “I owe you” the genuine response was “forget it”. One Italian workmate who used to give me a lift home gave me a dead set serve when I offered him money, and he wasn’t acting, he was genuinely insulted that I thought that his action was conditional. I was in need and he could help, that was all there was to it.The best and most effective workplaces for me have always been essentially communistic, if someone needs help and you can provide it you do it. And you don’t do it because it’s more productive, even though it probably is, it’s much more instinctual or habitual.
Graeber’s not talking about “Communist Governments” or the “USSR”, and I don’t even think it’s ideology, I think it’s more fundamental than that. It’s the glue at the core of basic family and community relations, always has been and probably always will be.
Now Governments, that’s another thing altogether.

Quoted Post

Quoted Post
Socialism isn't a system though it's just a concept. There are a bunch of theoretical implementations of socialism, many of which address the issues raised by free spirit and bomber_girl. It's not just Marxism and "socialist" Russia or Cuba...

I’d be very keen to be enlightened on the theoretical implementation of socialism that doesn’t value the concept of “best for society” higher than the individual.

although I’m confused as to why we’re calling it socialism at that point?


Just trying to understand your point here… The only system I’ve seen that doesn’t value “best for society” higher than the individual is Libertarianism. So what do you mean by this point? As someone mentioned there aren’t really any true self-interest capitalist nations, just varying degrees of socialism, and varying degrees of honesty regarding their systems…

Earlier I referred to workers co-operatives, and the extension of that is syndicalism. Syndicalism could be interpreted as being more about “self interest” than “society interest”, if you were to look at it as part of a larger picture - self interested parties empowered through ownership (but not bound) forming groups of related self-interest… At this point though I’d start struggling to explain myself in a forum post :slight_smile:

Quoted Post

Socialism isn't a system though it's just a concept. There are a bunch of theoretical implementations of socialism, many of which address the issues raised by free spirit and bomber_girl. It's not just Marxism and "socialist" Russia or Cuba...

I’d be very keen to be enlightened on the theoretical implementation of socialism that doesn’t value the concept of “best for society” higher than the individual.

although I’m confused as to why we’re calling it socialism at that point?

sorry