Socialism - what are the alternatives?

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

In our last discussion, it soon became clear that some people have a habit of framing the debate on terms that are somewhat biased to say the least.

Take this business about " tax is theft" - ok, sometimes a level of taxation may be exorbitant or unfair - but what is the alternative?

See, I am not saying that the Government should own and run everything.
That is Communism, and Communists are a subset of Socialists in the same way that Episcopalians are a subset of Christians.
Just because someone goes to church, this does not mean that they use the Book of Common Prayer, or think that Quakers are odd - they may well be Quakers themselves.

In like manner, Socialists believe in some form of State ordered society and some form of State control, rather than a laissez faire approach favoured by Conservatives. You may say that "That isn't Socialism, it is simply capitalism with a human face".

Ok, I grant you that on many issues, people on the Left wing of the British Tory Party are practically indistinguishable from a right wing, well heeled Labour supporter. but politics is a spectrum of belief , not a clearly set and unbridgeable gulf, such as the Mises Institute would suggest.

The Mises Institute, as I showed in the last link, clearly believes that there is no middle way , no compromise between the State and the individual - it is all or nothing, in their eyes - you either have State Control and that inevitably leads to Communism, or you have 'Freedom', and it has to be absolute freedom , by the sounds of it, for them to be happy. Well, let us look at a real live country that I have lived in for over 50 years. Look at the UK.

In the early 20th century, there were wealthy men who had some concern for the poor, and they agitated for Social Reform. they were called ' the Liberal Party', and opposed the Conservatives wh wanted to maintain the status quo.

however, many working class people began to demand a party of the people to represent the interests of the people, and so the Labour Party came to represent the interests of the working classes and pushed the Liberal Party into the background of British politics. Sadly , the First Labour Government won power at the same time as the Wall Street Crash - many British people found themselves out of work , and blamed the government for doing nothing to help them.

However, following the victory over fascism in WW2, the Labour Party swept to power in 1945, and put on an amazing programme of social change. this was funded by death duties and was bitterly resented by the aristocracy who often sold stately homes as they could not afford the tax levied on inheritances.

The Aristocracy argued that this was theft, of course. But , back in the days when a rich mill owner could tell the workers "You can either work in my mill under my rule or go elsewhere" - well that seemed most fair to them that owned the mill. Now, the working man and woman had won power, not by owning land that was gained by bloodshed and conquest, but by victory in the Polls. No Aristocrats died when Socialists took power in Britain , although many socialists had been literally killed before the workers were allowed to vote.

So, what is this Democratic Socialism that made Britain what it is today ? Let me tell you...

In the beginning , almost , we had cities. instead of wandering around from waterhole to waterhole, we got into the habit of settling down and collecting stuff. that meant that we had stuff that passing nomads saw , liked and would steal if the could. the community stockpile needed protecting. And a local strongman , sooner or later , would stand up and declare himself to be the Lord , Leader and protector of the settlement, whatever it ws called.

We came to call them 'kings' and although they started off ruling over small city states, the best organised of these soon came to control vast areas outside the city itself. before long , we had nation states and not city states any more.

Now, I have a hunch that because men are taller and heavier than women on average, the city state came to be run by men because they were best at warfare in a pre industrial age. We invented War long before we invented Capitalism.

But the wealth of a community was tied to it's land and how much food, wood and other goods could be got out of the ground by various means. And as time went on , the stockpiles grew, as did the kingdoms under one man's control. So kings began to delegate to lesser men , who owned the land and the common people who lived there.
That is correct, the Lord of the manor would own the serfs who tilled his fields. A serf could not leave the land, or marry, or do anything much without the lord's permission.

But when a certain King tried the same trick on the Aristocracy - " I look after you, I own you and you do as I say ", well the Aristocracy told King John what he could do with his orders. the Aristocracy presented the King with the Magna Carta. This was Law, and even the king, they argued, had to obey the Law.

well, Kiing John threw a wobbly and tried to wage war on the barons , but he lost and died on campaign.
his successor, presented with the MC , simply signed it rather than risk trouble. Ok, fast forward to the English Civil war where Chares the First tried to take on the wealthy commoners. he lost the war and then lost his head when the Commoners executed him in 1649.

Oliver Cromwell was a religious fanatic who cancelled Christmas. So, when he died, Charles II was welcomed back, on condition that he behaved himself. the King was to be a figurehead who ruled England, but only on the advice of his ministers , who were elected to Parliament.

Now, back then , only rich folks could vote. Ok, some rich people took the view that as they were chritians , they ought to be looking after the poor. they were good and charitable men who looked after their workers and saw to it that they did not suffer needless hardship.

Yet, in many cases, the rule of the Aristocracy in England was unfair and oppressive. Common land that once enabled the ppor to scratch a living from the soil was suddenly bought up and used to graze sheep- and wool brought in more cash than the ragged peasants.

"The law locks up the man or woman , who steals a goose from off the common -
yet leaves the greater villain loose, who steals the common from the goose"

so ran a contemporary rhyme.

But the poor soon found that there were rich men who were opening factories, mills and coal mines - and asking poor people to come work for them.

Now, the poor had a free choice - they could do 12 hours work a day for a mere pittance, or they could go back on the road and starve. the workers were forbidden to organise or band together to negotiate. when a group of farm hands did this in Tollpuddle in Dorset, they were sentenced to Transportation - sent to the penal colony in Australia , where England sent people it was not quite willing to hang.

The famous Tollpuddle Martyrs are still on Wikipedia, even today. A shocking reminder of what can happen when people do not have a Socialist Government to protect them from the rich.

But let us move on , for we have a lot to see. Poor people still wanted to be able to vote for people who would show them pity and defend the m from exploitation. but were not allowed. And so arose the Chartist Movement. you can get them up on Wiki too. And when a large crowd gathered in Manchester, to peacefully gather and present a petition to ask for working people to be allowed the vote, those nice people who ran England arranged for the army to be called out. Mounted dragoons literally drew sabres and charged to disperse the Chartists. One of the many who died was a pregnant woman.

There were many struggles after the Peterloo Massacre, as it was known , but the working men of England got the vote. And promptly voted in Labour - the Socialist Party.

the alternative to Socialism is Feudalism. The rule of a despot and the appointed local Lord. It matters not if the despot owns the fields or the factory - the despot, male or female will attempt to own and coerce the workforce - tell them what to wear, enforce the owners standards and whims.

But the alternative to Despotism is Democracy. The wealth of a nation belongs equally to those who toil to make the goods, as well as those who command the goods be made. that is the Socialist argument, and Kings have died opposing it, but not so often as workers who died upholding it.

So, is there any common ground? well, Democracy will allow certain forms of property, and will allow people to run cars, so long as they buy licences, sit driving tests and keep to the right side of the road.
Good despots, benevolent dictators, will see to it that the mob is kept happy - and good Socialists allow entreprenuers to make enough money for iit to be worthwhile. So, perhaps some middlle way can be reached aftr all.

Comments

You skipped the part...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

In your evolution of the state, you skipped the part where one state consolidated the power of other states under its dominion to form the super state and the king of kings. This became the paradigm for the US government which has governors as the regional monarchs and the president as the super anus. Although Libertarians think of big government as a new thing, it goes back thousands of years.

Re: You skipped the part...

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

You need to do more reading, or associate with a wider crowd of libertarians. Some of the shallow political animals of the Libertarian Party believe as you say. They aren't much more educated in the philosophy they supposedly embrace than the average Republican or Democrat. Like any philosophical system, libertarianism is open to be claimed by anyone and the depth of understanding and the extent to which one has pursued wisdom within that domain is a factor of individual effort.

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."
— L. Neil Smith

Re: You skipped the part...

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

The gaining of an Empire has no part in the workers struggle. It was irrelevant, as it made no difference to the worker who the king was.

the real differences were
Switching from nomadic to city life
Magna Carter,
the Chartist Movement
the trades Union movement,
Marxist Economics
Democrtaic socialism.

Although many socialists reject Marxist analysis on revolution and the role of the State, Socialism predates marx and his contribution to the movement was an understanding of economics that is required reading , even today.

However, Marx declared that as the poor could no buy back their surplus value, that capitalism would collapse under its own weight.

This did not happen , chiefly because capitalists saw the problem and headed off disaster by buying the workers off, in effect.

Re: You skipped the part...

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It does predate Marx but not the 19th Century. Sorry. Marx predicted the disappearance of the state altogether, instead the 20th Century saw the rise of the welfare state, and no less than four types of totalitarianism.

Re: You skipped the part...

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I think you mistook the USA for the Kingdom of Qin or the Kingdom of Macedon. US history doesn't and hasn't worked that way.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Hey, uh, socialism is where the workers own the means of production, not whatever you're talking about.

Thanks.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Oh, yeah?
so what should socialists do in a country where wealth is vested in shops, in financial services and not in manufacture?

The Socialism you refer to is the Socialism expounded in the early decades of the 20th Century, in books such as 'The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist.

Even for A Socialist government to take over all the means ofproduction, such an act would be meaningless, because so much more money is made in banking, in retailing, transport and other services. This is why the post war Labour Government nationalised railways , which produce absolutely nil, but serve several businesses in lots of ways.

Socialism is a living political theory , in the same sense that English is a living language - it evolves and has evolved a lot since it was first conceived. Try to remember that when you talk about Socialism today.

FYI- ~This~ is what Socialism actually is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism

As you will see , Socialism is more that what you appear to think it is.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

it evolves and has evolved a lot since it was first conceived.

No it hasn't. You can't just change the definition of a word to fit with something you agree with.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

"See, I am not saying that the Government should own and run everything.
That is Communism, and Communists are a subset of Socialists in the same way that Episcopalians are a subset of Christians."

Actually no.

Socialism is government ownership, or at least control, of the means of production. Communism is Socialism + Anarchism, that is first you establish a socialist state, then you abolish the state to get to Communism.


"Take this business about " tax is theft" - ok, sometimes a level of taxation may be exorbitant or unfair - but what is the alternative?"

Well, from a moral standpoint taxes *are* theft, however that does not mean we should not have or abolish them. The fact is we live in an imperfect world and sometimes there is no purely moral way to act because moral imperatives sometimes conflict. So while taxes are theft and morally wrong at certain levels they may be the least immoral course of action.

The key thing is to remember that they are theft so we don't forget that there are costs to raising them or keeping them higher than they absolutely need to be.


"the alternative to Socialism is Feudalism. "

Um, no. This completely ignores the reality of the world as today in your very own England you have neither socialism nor Feudalism and there are places in the world that have never had either such as my home here in the US.

"It matters not if the despot owns the fields or the factory - the despot, male or female will attempt to own and coerce the workforce - tell them what to wear, enforce the owners standards and whims."

Um, no they won't. I can show you example after example of cases where "Despots" specifically do not try to coerce their employees but rather go out of their way to win their employees loyalty. We can start here...

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2010/full_list/

and here is the description for #1 on that list (SAS)

"What makes it so great?
One of the Best Companies for all 13 years, SAS boasts a laundry list of benefits -- high-quality child care at $410 a month, 90% coverage of the health insurance premium, unlimited sick days, a medical center staffed by four physicians and 10 nurse practitioners (at no cost to employees), a free 66,000-square-foot fitness center and natatorium, a lending library, and a summer camp for children.

The architect of this culture -- based on "trust between our employees and the company" -- is Jim Goodnight, its co-founder, and the only CEO that SAS has had in its 34-year history.

Some might think that with all those perks, Goodnight was giving away the store. Not so. SAS is highly profitable and ranks as the world’s largest privately owned software company. Turnover is the industry’s lowest at 2%. "

No, corporations, business owners, etc do not necessarily or always try to oppress their workers because in the real world they have to compete for the services of those workers and the smart companies want the best workers for themselves

"
But the alternative to Despotism is Democracy. The wealth of a nation belongs equally to those who toil to make the goods, as well as those who command the goods be made. that is the Socialist argument, and Kings have died opposing it, but not so often as workers who died upholding it.
"

And the libertarian (liberal to you outside the States) argument is that there is no such thing as the wealth of the nation, there is only the individual who is the sole owner of the product of his labor whether that be an actual product or a wage that he is paid for his services.

Further your entire post overlooks the abuses of socialism which has committed more than it's fair share of massacre's and lets face it, the socialist government functionary is just as capable of being the despot as the business owner

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Socialism is government ownership, or at least control, of the means of production.

Close! If only you had read the comment directly above your own...

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

Eh, we're both half right in this context...

Socialism: (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Socialism) " a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."

So the ownership could be direct as in employee owned corporations, or indirect in the form of corporations owned by a democratic state.

That said I was also typing my comment when you posted yours so I couldn't have seen it :-)

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

What you describe here is someone who operates rather like Robert Owen , a mill owner who first coined the term 'Socialist', and intended it to mean the opposit of 'individualist'.

A Socialist sees himself as a part of society, and not someone apart from it.

Owen was a man who really did look after hi s mill workers, and ensured that their children got an education , that the workers themselves had decent housing and safe working conditions.

And I will use him as an example to show that not all victorian mill owners were wicked people.

I would also acknowledge that not everyone who overthrows an oppressor does it for the workers benefit. Lenin overthrew the Czar of Russia in order to simply tak e his place. Moa famously said ' the peasants are the sea in which we swim'.

Men like Goodnight and Owen appreciate their workforce and treat it well because they know the value of their business depends on the human assets it contains.

As I say, there is little ground , in practical terms between left of centre Socialists like me and 'One Nation Tories' like John Major, Angela Watkinson or James Prior.

The ideas may be couched in different terms, but the care of the workers and an appreciation of their contribution to society is what they all emphasise .

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

...not a clearly set and unbridgeable gulf, such as the Mises Institute would suggest.

This is misunderstanding Mises and Hayek. Their point was not that politics and statist belief is not a spectrum but that power, as a phenomenon, tends to be centralized and accumulated by groups of people and that the exercise of power over the free choices and rights of individuals tends to create all sorts of perverse incentives and consequences as people attempt to reassert their actual wishes and plans over the machinations of the planners. These unintended consequences become rationalizations and opportunities for further "corrective interventions" by others, ambitious for power. It is opportunity to extend the lattitude and magnitude of their authority.

Unlike action in the cooperative social sphere, action in the political sphere is, inherently never about its professed goals as its primary means. Achieving something through force demands that first, before anything else can be accomplished, one must acquire more political power than the people one intends to force, who disagree. Coercion is never a better method of problem solving than cooperation because it invokes the friction inherent in violating someone else's rights to get what one wants, often times whether one has legitimately earned it or not. Politics is always about power first, before any other goal, of necessity. Sometimes, in many cases among politicians, power is the only goal, and the professed goal is only a pretext.

The Austrian Economists do say that there is, in effect, no middle way, just not for the reason you assert. The Austrian's never claimed that politics is black or white, not a melange of beliefs and goals, rather they have said that the melange itself was a large part of the reason that there is effectively no middle way. The "unity" implied by those who believe in polticial action is a delusion. People tend to hide from the coercion their political "solutions" involve and immagine that they are promoting a universal vision of Hobbes's Leviathan that is uniquely theirs to define and control. The problem with getting Leviathan to use its sword against the rights and will of others is that tne rights-violating "exception" always creates incentives for the next one.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

And yet , what does this item in the Mises Institute say ?

Is it in favour of women determining their own destinies, of being independent of male income?

is it in favour of less population and a falling birthrate among the working class?

hhow are we to be happy , under Mises sceme? what would we do if we took their advice?

As a Socialist, I say that the workers should have fewer kids , stop seeking fulfilment in having children and focus on raising their own conciousness.

there should be state sponsored education , and Universal healthcare, because the workers puff and sweat make all the rest possible, so they should share the fruits of community labour.
this is not what Mises seems to be saying to me.

[malakh-abaddon.livejournal.com]

I guess no one has ever heard of Democratic Socialism. The fact of the matter is as follows, laissez faire capitalism does not work, pure socialism does not work either. We are a people of extremes, and we fly between the extremes every election, giving no side a chance to enact programs and allow them to run their course. We must find the balance between the system we have, and the system that promotes the general welfare of all. Capitalism any does so, as long as the people who control remember they are nothing without those doing the work, and those who are doing the work remember those who are in power can walk away at anytime.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Democratic Socialism is converting the economy from a capitalist system to a socialist one through democratic means. It's just the converse of authoritarian socialism, which is done through a revolution.

There's no evidence that socialism can be implemented through democratic means, though.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Revolution usually meaning fighting a civil war and winning. Which creates strong armies, incompatible with communism but also the bulwark of the Revolution, necessitating expansion of existing Terror, ensue Vicious Circle.

[ja-va.livejournal.com]

There seems to be a lot of confusion about the terms "socialism" and "communism". Maybe I should try to clear it up a bit. These terms are often used incorrectly.

Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled co-operatively, or a political philosophy advocating such a system.
It refers to ALL means of production, not just some of them. USSR was a socialist country, so was Poland, East Germany and number of others back in the iron curtain days. Today North Korea and Cuba are socialist states. Countries where some of the means of production are government controlled are not socialist, as long as you have private individuals owning a factory the country is classified as capitalist.

Communism, on the other hand, has never been clearly defined. According to dictionaries, it is "a system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state". Common description of communists themselves is that communism will be "from everyone according to his abilities, to everyone according to his needs", meaning people will get whatever they need for free while doing the best job they can for no pay. In real world this system never existed and most likely can not exist outside of a small group of enthusiasts. There has never been a communist country in existence on this planet, and probably never will be. In USSR, Nikita Khrushchev promised to complete the construction of the communist state by the 1980th, however he was removed from power and new leaders never mentioned this possibility again. Others were more cautious, holding back on promises and even explanations as to what communism will mean in reality.

Partial ownership of some means of production or anything else by the state is neither socialism nor communism, it is simply more liberal model of capitalist state. Any society where means of production belong to capitalists, be it all of them or only some, is a capitalist society according to Marx, because it allows for exploitation of the working class.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

You are correct. Socialism would require all forms of production to be owned by the proletariat, to the point where anyone who didn't buy into the system would be kicked out of the system (execution, deportation, you name it). It requires a unanimous consensus which is completely impossible with humans.

[ja-va.livejournal.com]

This is exactly what happened in the USSR:
Owning means of production was against the law and punishable by prison terms. In fact, people did manage to own means of production illegally, there were so called "tsekhoviki" - black market producers who organized secret production of certain things in order to make profit, some of them employed large numbers of people! Once caught, they were sent to jail.

[prog-expat.livejournal.com]

"... is a capitalist society according to Marx, ..." Marx did not speak for all socialists.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Er, no. Socialism is democratic control by the workers of the means of production. If capital controls those means within state regulations, that ain't no socialism I ever heard of.

Second, the Magna Carta did not happen that way, it happened because John was a bad war leader and the nobles didn't want to throw good money after bad and won the civil war that followed. It was imposed at the hilt of a sword. And it was of nobles, by nobles, for nobles, lest the nobility should perish from the earth.

Third, the rise of Oliver Cromwell was another instance of what I call the Praetorian phenomenon: you'd damn well better pay your standing army or your government is over. It had nothing to do with liberty.

Fourth, that's a false dichotomy. Other options are laissez-Faire Gilded Age capitalism, European social democracy, Leninism-Stalinism, Maoism, Hoxhaism, Fascism, Nazism, Integralism, Dominionism, Islamism.....it's not socialism-feudalism. Of course to me the only options of these remotely worth considering are social democracy and the Gilded Age, the rest can take a long walk off a short pier over Megalodon-infested waters.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

If capital controls those means within state regulations, that ain't no socialism I ever heard of.
When I started research for my next OP, I found forms of Socialism I have never heard of either.

Second, the Magna Carta did not happen that way,

I disagree with yr analysis on some points. going to war was the last straw. of course it was written by nobles for the nobles - but it said things like habeus corpus, it made widows and minors wards of court , to use modern parlance. And this was to prevent King John from wasting the estates of minors and forcing widows to marry in accord with Royal wishes.

And the barons wrote those clauses in because King John had shown himself guilty of practising such abuses already.
The reason why MC became important was that they said ' all free men ' , and though they meant only themselves, the burghers and citizens of the town soon cottoned onto the idea that ' they were 'free men' also, who could pick up the rule book and use it against the aristocracy or the king as well if need be.

Oliver Cromwell had more than paying his army to worry about. When he died , the Monarchy was back - not only that , but so was Christmas, the theatre and almost all that Ollie disapproved of.

As for the false Dichotomy, well, Gilded Age capitalism, it sounds ok , as does a Benevolent Dictatorship. I would argue that these are basically the same thing, though.

And all the other things like Maoism and Leninism are just sub sets of Socialism in my book. I will accept Islamism as a religious movement, but some Muslims are capitalist in their behaviour and yet there is also 'Islamic Socialism' to consider.

I think we need to define Socialism and explore its development in a new OP before we talk further.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Socialism and 'freedom' constitute a false dichotomy.

It presents an illusion of choice.

In real life both options suck and virtually any alternative which doesn't involve one or the other is the optimal solution we need.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

we can talk about that in a new OP.
And when you come back - if you ever do, please tell us how working for John Lewis sucks exactly ...