![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
prog-expat.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpolitics(Hah! You thought this was going to be an entry on Buddhism, dintcha.)
Something that observers of politics quickly realize is that the Left-Right model of politics is far too simplistic to be useful. (Well, except for those that take up a Cause and join the Crusade against the Other Side, as such a simplistic, bipolar view makes it easier to force-fit everything into terms of "Good vs. Evil" — typically with a redifinition of what constitutes Right and Left to more conveniently fit into that person's ideals of Good and Evil. "Nazis were Leftists" and "The Soviet Union was state capitalism" crowds, I'm glaring at you.) There have been many attempts to construct multi-axis methods of categorizing the political spectrum, most of them two-dimensional.
Since the dust-up over what defines socialism, I've been meditating off and on about the internal divisions within socialism. Recently, I came to the conclusion that there are three axes that define the different branches of socialism.
The first is Moderate-Revolutionary — an axis that can be applied to any political philosophy — with those that advocate establishment of cooperatives embedded within an otherwise capitalist nation or working within an existing democratic or republican system to implement reforms being contrasted with those that advocate violent overthrow of the existing system and erection of a socialist system from scratch.
The second is Cooperative-State, contrasting worker-owned cooperatives with state ownership/stewardship.
The third and final is Market-Planned, contrasting unplanned economies that rely on market forces with those where direct control of the economy is practiced.
I want to address that last axis, as the notion of a market economy seems contrary to socialism as understood by most. Keep in mind that the definition of socialism is communal ownership of the economic mechanism. Consider, if you will, the scenario of wholly employee-owned cooperatives interacting within a market economy. There's no moneyed class of investors who derive economic benefit purely from owning pieces of each company, so this scenario is definitely not capitalism. Yet, the cooperatives are free to associate with whomever and however their worker-owners want, and competition between coops would likely be just as fierce as between capitalist corporations.
Certainly this scenario isn't a Free Market — at least not in its purest sense — as the lack of capitalist-style, investor-owned corporations seems unlikely without some sort of ban on such entities. A situation where everybody has decided on their own to participate in coops and corporations have withered away organically is certainly possible, but it's so highly unlikely as to be safely disregarded as a Utopian socialist's wet dream. But, then, what about a situation where only a handful of corporations still exist and the vast majority of economic participants are coops?
Where exactly do we draw that line between capitalist and socialist economies? Using purist definitions of either is unworkable. The United States is clearly a capitalist economy, yet cooperatives are allowed, and do exist — credit unions being the most visible example, especially in recent months. It seems far more reasonable to use more inclusive definitions: if most economic activity is by privately-owned entities, then the economy is a capitalist one, if communally-owned entities perform the bulk of economic activity, then the economy is a socialist one.
So, a market economy and socialism are not mutually exclusive as is commonly thought, after all.
The second axis is perhaps less contentious. State ownership is the default state that most think of when they hear the word socialism, but cooperatives are understood to exist and few would fight their inclusion under the socialist umbrella.
The first axis is the least contentious of all: either a particular socialist advocates reform of the existing system, either by using an existing governmental framework to establish state-owned corporations or by purely economic means by getting a group together to pool their resources and start a cooperative, or the socialist advocates blowing the whole thing up and starting over from scratch.
The Revolutionary, State ownership, Planned economy octant is perhaps the most well-known subset of socialism — to the glee of capitalism's apologists — thanks to the communist revolutions of the Twentieth Century begun with the Soviet Union.
Its Moderate counterpart has fewer examples — Salvador Allende's Chile being the only one I can think of off the top of my head — largely due to it being easier to undermine by external organizations (the Catholic Church and Nixon's United States in the case of Chile). However, Chile does show that it is possible to pursue a path to socialism, even the type of socialism most distasteful to capitalists, through democratic means. (So I won't bore you by defining the rest of the octants individually, just understand that each of the following quadrants would have its revolutionary and its moderate advocates.)
The two Cooperative ownership, Planned octants would be defined by locally-owned coops operating within a centrally-planned economy, the coops managing day-to-day decisions while working towards the goals set by the central committee.
The State ownership, Market economy quadrant may seem a bit nonsensical at first glance. The state owns everything, but leaves it up to market forces to manage the economy. This can be achieved by establishing multiple, competing, state-owned corporations in each market. Each would receive some basic subsidy, with profits (yes, that's right: profits in a socialist system) either being distributed amongst employees or being used to finance public works.
The final quadrant, the Cooperative ownership, Market economy — especially its Moderate octant — is the most similar to capitalism as far as its impact on the day-to-day lives of consumers and employees, which is probably why capitalism's apologists ignore it while shouting loudly and pointing fingers at the Revolutionary, State ownership, Planned economy octant. Investor-owned corporations are simply replaced by employee-owned cooperatives with investors and employees becoming one and the same.
A final thought: if socialism alone warrants three axes defining eight octants, what good is the broader Left-Right spectrum for anything other than wanking?
(no subject)
Date: 2/1/12 22:57 (UTC)Sounds like capitalism to me. Why do you think it's not? Simply because of the outdated "requirement" that there be rich capitalists "driving" the system? The employee owners are deriving the economic benefit from owning the company, so they are just as much the capitalists in that scenario as the traditional single investor would be.
(no subject)
Date: 2/1/12 23:00 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 04:23 (UTC)*nods* Including those set up by Robert Owen, George Mudie, those inspired by Charles Fourier (Albert Brisbane and Horace Greeley), the Icarian movement of Cabet (who coined the word 'communism'), the co-operative "dual power" movement started by Proudhon... and so on and so on and so on.
(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 04:43 (UTC)Thank god someone else said that in here. I went through like 100 replies trying to explain this to someone and they were just like 'nope, the UK is socialist'.
Although, if these workers have to engage with capitalist entities in their line of business (getting supplies, etc) then it's not really a socialist system. Socialism cannot exist in a vacuum, as all aspects of the economy have to be socialist in order for it to exist.
(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 07:50 (UTC)That's contradictory. The workers are private parties, so if they own it, then it's privately owned. It makes no difference if there's one owner or multiple owners.
(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 07:58 (UTC)How about doing at least a little bit of reading on the history of socialism before engaging in such ridiculously ignorant statements?
(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 12:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 12:28 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 09:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 15:21 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 21:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 03:53 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 03:53 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 05:44 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 08:40 (UTC)And I understand your statement just fine and don't disagree with it.
(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 09:04 (UTC)So what is your issue? Because from here is sure stinks that you just don't like the word.
(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 21:58 (UTC)Note that I did not bring "socialism" into the issue at all, so that can't be what my issue is.
(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 22:09 (UTC)You don't seem to understand the difference between private ownership and cooperative ownership.
(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 23:17 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 23:58 (UTC)http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/public-property.html
Note especially the reference to community. You may wish to check what that means in this context.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/community.html
You may wish to compare with private property
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/private-property.html
In a nutshell a group of individuals in a cooperative venture is not "private ownership". That requires either individual ownership or joint-stock.
(no subject)
Date: 5/1/12 09:33 (UTC)A firm is a collection of people. There is no significant difference between a group of people being called a community and a group of people being called a firm. Yes, there are differences that matter when talking about certain things, but when talking about only ownership, there is no relevant distinction.
(no subject)
Date: 5/1/12 12:10 (UTC)You can say that. Referenced material disagrees. Why does it disagree? Because a firm varies ownership rights according to capital investment.
A cooperative, a public, allocates ownership equally among its members.
This seems to the part that you're having troubles with.
(no subject)
Date: 5/1/12 18:53 (UTC)Because they've all invested equally. So, there's no distinction with a firm, which is also a public.
(no subject)
Date: 5/1/12 23:45 (UTC)Cooperatives are owned exclusively by the employees, by the people that are responsible for producing the product, with nobody gaining in any way simply by owning a piece of the pie.
(no subject)
Date: 6/1/12 03:19 (UTC)Again, that sounds contradictory. What is ownership but getting a piece of the pie? All it means is that they have equal slices and the size of the slice can't be changed.
Here, let's look at this with numbers. If there's a coop with 10 owners who each put nothing into the company (however that magic works), then each one owns 1/10 of the company. If I start a business with 9 friends and we each put in $10,000, then we each own 1/10 of the company. If we never put any of our own money into the company again, what's the difference between the two companies? It looks to me like there is no difference, other than some arbitrary label describing some of the other potential features, like how decisions are reached or who is liable or something like that.
(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 04:03 (UTC)No, it sounds like socialism but just a variety which you find acceptable so therefore you can't describe it as socialism. Amirite?
(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 07:51 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 07:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 03:51 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/1/12 22:58 (UTC)This seems like an arbitrary definition that ignores the common usage of the term "socialist".
(no subject)
Date: 2/1/12 23:06 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 07:52 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 08:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/1/12 23:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/1/12 23:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 01:52 (UTC)This profoundly incorrect statement reveals how naturalized the capitalist order has become in our minds.
Capitalist-style investor-owned corporations are a direct product of state legal support. The corporate “liability shield” is a 19th century invention, in which the corporation itself has the only liability for the costs it incurs, protecting the owners from losing anything more than their initial investment. Thus if BigCo has two million dollars in debts but only one million dollars in assets, that's tough luck for the creditors because they cannot go to BigCo's owners for the missing million. This asymmetry in which owners have unlimited upside but limited downside is contrary to how people understood contracts to work until fairly recently. You can have a free market without it, but you cannot have capitalism, because without it it's much harder to raise capital, since being an investor exposes you to liability and loss.
Thus capitalism is a product of the state. When capitalism's champions talk about it being wrong for the state to interfere in economic activity, they ignore how the state makes industrial capitalism possible in the first place, this being only one of the ways.
Change the law so that only worker-owned coöperatives enjoy the liability shield and you don't need to “ban” investor-owned corporations. Bingo, instant syndicalist socialism, just add water.
Mind you, I'm not saying that eliminating the limited liability corporation is a good idea. Quite the contrary, I think it's the goose that lays the golden egg of industrial prosperity. But it's important to recognize that corporations are instrumental to how they serve people's needs rather than a good in themselves.
Likewise, markets are also a product of a range of state interventions that make them possible. The idea of a “free” market without state “interference” is meaningless, a chimera.
As with limited liability corporations, markets are a powerful tool and I am skeptical of critics who want to eliminate them. But their value is entirely in their utility in addressing our needs and desires, and they should be actively shaped to that purpose.
I vigorously believe that most goods and services are best delivered through market capitalism, but that many things are better delivered other ways. Sovietism demonstrated how allowing the state to directly control the creation of consumer goods was vastly inferior to market capitalism. On the other hand, history teaches firefighting is a public good best handled as a public trust by the state; private firefighters have bad incentives.
(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 04:32 (UTC)A true free market would have vastly fewer "big businesses" and far many smaller ones, that's for sure.
(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 05:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 17:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 18:21 (UTC)Legislation requires that companies in the US must all accept payments in Federal Reserve Notes (the money in your wallet), and cannot refuse these as payment for things priced in dollars. Does this make the market more “free” because people can use the same money everywhere, or less “free” because a company cannot demand dollars issued by a particular bank?
Legislation requires that employers in the US may not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Does this make the labor market more “free” because everyone is able to participate in it or less “free” because employers are subject to this regulation?
If BigCo negligently burns my house down, then goes out of business, I cannot sue the wealthy owners of BigCo, who appointed the board that made the decisions that led to the fire. Does this make the market more or less “free” than if I could sue them?
The market is built on a bedrock of government rules, resources, and interventions. There are government interventions that are good ideas and others that are bad ideas; interventions that are onerous and others that are enabling. But there is no “truly free market” devoid of government involvement.
(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 20:46 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 21:10 (UTC)The limited liability corporation developed primarily in order to enable the private funding of large-scale projects. A legal and economic order which did not include provision for them would surely have a lot less large-scale privately owned businesses, if it had any at all.
(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 04:26 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 08:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 17:26 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 20:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 22:24 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/1/12 20:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/1/12 17:27 (UTC)