this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023
1143 points (93.7% liked)
Memes
45704 readers
1227 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's funny cause it's true.
It's funny because it's the dominant system and any other proposed system would handle the respective situation worse on average but is highly situational. You get into arguments that devolved into, "well, there's massive starvation and war but at least we are all equal"
You're expressing the notion of "capitalist realism" which is argued to be an effect of neoliberal ideaology. The idea that not only is capitalism the only viable solution, but you can't even imagine a viable alternative. There's a book of the same title that you'd probably get a lot out of since it might make you more critical of ideas you may have taken for granted, which is my personal favorite kind of book.
I can imagine plenty of viable alternatives. There's plenty of arguments to be made that the USSR was just as productive as the US on a per capita basis. They addressed the productivity issues of decentralized socialism through centralization.
The issue comes down to the lack of dissent within the system. Private ownership provides a natural counterbalance to the power of the state. Even in the most ideal of democratic socialist systems, there is no functional check on the power of the majority to vote in their own benefit over minorities. Every government system regardless of its economic base has resulted in rapid expansion without a check on power, internally or externally.
You are right that I cannot imagine a viable alternative. Neither can you. You just think you have but have not addressed the core power problem. Mark Fisher is great at framing away this issue but it still exists and is the core issue with true leftist ideologies.
Actually the reason USSR failed was the state itself not being very agile. Different state entities would impede each other while fighting for funds, for their project to become standard (the competing projects would become standards as well, there'd be plenty of incompatible standards), for them to be more politically important (Politburo wasn't a dictatorial institution).
Naturally in such a climate any cooperation between state entities would involve more complex and obscure diplomacy and deals than how it happens between companies in typical market economies.
So this:
is the opposite of reality. Productivity was USSR's weakest side. It really honestly succeeded in some unexpected aspects, but efficiency is not one of them.
So, I agree. Decentralization of the Soviets was immensely worse early after the revolution though so they centralized early. The CCP early in its creation had the same criticisms of the USSR resulting in a much longer attempt at decentralization and actual famine.
If NEP is what you mean by "decentralization" (because nothing else makes sense even remotely, Soviets by definition are a vertical structure, like a tree with its root being the center), then it's generally accepted that NEP was the thing which allowed to restore Soviet Russia from a famished wasteland after the Civil War.
They had almost a decade of slowly pushing out communist dissenters out of the political field (all non-communist leftists were already banned closer to the end of the Civil War, and the rest - hahaha), which may give you the wrong impression. However, they were heavily centralized from day one. That was part of the ideology. It's not some European leftists we are talking about.
For these people political competitiveness or pluralism or due process in courts or human rights were not high on the list of priorities. Building industries to arm heavily and "spread the revolution" was.
Their ideal was some sort of a communist version of the German Empire.
Otherwise pretty basic points that any decent book on socialism or alternatives to capitalism basically addresses in the first chapter.
Basic points that I have never seen in any book on socialism and you are yet to provide. Maybe you should be the one reading more instead of vaguely suggesting that I do. Maybe then you could provide them.
I mean the most introductory book Blackcoats and Reds deals a lot with this and there's a whole chapter on the weaknesses of stable socialist/ML states. Whatever you think is stable or good under a capitalist government is merely because the negatives you associate specifically with socialism are exported, but are actually far more severe.
I'm going through this one now, it's framed as a thought experiment for a bottom up society: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/p-m-bolo-bolo
This thought experiment is based on an unrealistic view not only of natural history but also of the human condition and modern economics. It is based on a view of how easy the perceived human condition was before the existence of larger society.
"In prehistoric times our deal seems to have been not so bad. During the Old Stone Age (50,000 years ago) we were only few, food (game and plants) was abundant, and survival required only little working time and moderate efforts."
This period of hunter-gatherers was largely the experience of 90% of the time looking for food. It was only the emergence of sustained and coordinated agriculture requiring public works that this started to change. Modern industrialized agriculture has enabled populations not sustainable in that text and requires a larger coordination of people than a small commune can support. That text does not cover larger governance and relies on high-output lands to sustain itself, let alone others. If you cannot enable specialization, you cannot scale nor can you provide the lifestyle people are accustomed to enjoying post-WWII.
There are already communes like this everywhere and nobody is saying that you cannot start one. The only issue is people trying to force others into this system. It starts based on oppression regardless of feasibility.
It does cover how larger industry would be coordinated, it is not advocating for communes. Feel like we're reading two different things...
On what grounds do you think that it's worse for Workers to democratically control production, rather than a class of owners?
Do you think crops care about who shares ownership of them, and kill themselves if they are shared, rather than owned by 1 dude that employs other people to harvest it?
This doesn't really address what he said.
Workers don't vote themselves more work for the money. Less work equals less crops. Crops don't care. This is why socialism as an economic base always devolves into directive work (which I would argue is actual state slavery)
There are other various options for socialism and anarchism of course. Unless you line out specifically which flawed system you propose we cannot address it. Anything that still has private ownership at it's base is still capitalist though so most Western models such as the Nordics don't count.
Also, corporations are not owned by one dude. This is the benefit of the corporate model over sole proprietorships at a societal level but whatever is most efficient in the end.
It's true that people would be paid more for their labor, it's false to equate that to underproducing food. You're attaching mysticism to your claim, as though it's inevitable that starvation would happen unless you have a Capitalist brutally exploiting workers and still having starvation despite food being literally thrown away. Co-operative farming exists and has existed in stable manners for the vast majority of human existence, and this is even easier as industrialization improves.
There are no "other options" for Socialism beyond Worker Ownership of the Means of Production. That is Socialism. If you mean there are other models than Marxism-Leninism, then of course, I'm not an ML myself. I'm anti-tendency and think each country has unique circumstances that will result in different paths to worker ownership, perhaps Syndicalism, or Market Socialism, or Council Communism, etc.
Whether the corporation is owned by a single Capitalist or several, the fact that the Workers have exactly no say and the Capitalists have all of the say remains the problem.
It is inevitable that starvation would happen because all of the systems you mention are inflexible to shocks and periods of instability and we do see this through history in socialist areas. That's not even to mention the potential for genocide with all economic production in the control of the majority(in the most ideal circumstance)
The issue with claiming for those three systems is that it's exactly what was attempted to set up in the USSR and under the CCP. Decentralization very quickly led to av massive collapse in production. It was swept under the rug and you don't learn about it. Then the power consolidation started.
Even the most studied folks in the left will not make the claim that Marx was anything but a guide or an intent so don't expect me to argue against it directly. I regret to the systems that actually developed and evolved and any recommended system should address their faults. Your three do not and I've not heard any that have.
Why is co-operative farming inflexible to shocks and instability? Wouldn't it be more stable if the group can react democratically, rather than depend on several competing mini-dictators to not price-gouge and take advantage of instability for profit? I'm not just talking off of vibes, here, Worker Co-operatives, ie collective ownership of business, are shown to be far more resistant to economic shocks and more adaptable than Capitalist entities: https://www.aspeninstitute.org/blog-posts/building-and-sustaining-worker-cooperatives-in-the-us/
The USSR and Maoist China were developing countries just coming out of revolution, and both the Russian Federation and modern PRC remain developing countries. France was also highly unstable following the French Revolution, and became headed by Napolean, one of history's most famous dictators. Pretending decentralization is purely to blame, rather than instability leading to centralization, is a weak point to make.
Why do you believe that no Leftist has attempted to learn from the mistakes of previous Socialist systems? That's incredibly wrong, modern leftist discourse is oriented around how to achieve Worker Ownership in modern society, and avoid the problems that have plagued previous Socialist systems.
All in all, why are you on a leftist, decentralized site like Lemmy, if you hate Socialism so much? It's interesting to see such cognitive dissonance, if you like Capitalism, then there's Reddit.
Coops are perfectly allowed and acceptable in the current system. Literally no one is telling you that you cannot do this and there are many quiet communities doing it already. You simply are not going to be resourced for it unless it will provide something for the state. Neither would any corporation or sole proprietorship.
All of what you said is true but the collapse was so immediate that there was only cause. Additionally, the collapse immediately went away through collectivization. You can argue with myself and the socialist governments at the time but you are making excuses for them unasked.
I never claimed that modern leftists have not attempted to learn. The entire so called American left is a product of 60s radicals slowly realizing that the way to greater equity is through reform. It simply has capitalism at its base instead of group ownership.
Why are you on a nonprofit run economic alternative to Reddit if you don't believe that the ultimate power in any market is consumer choice?
Because I believe in open source where I'm not a consumer, but a participant in it's creation. The ultimate power in the market isn't consumer choice, it's the choice over what gets made and who gets paid.
Not everyone wants to be responsible for every aspect of their lives. Can I assume you don't want to participate in your own food production or waste disposal? Specialization of labor is an important component in this which most respectable leftist texts will at least attempt to answer, even if they cannot solve it without centralization of economic planning.
Being pro-Open source is to be against the specialization of labor? That's probably not what you mean, but I don't get how having the option to participate negates specialized labor.
I'm pretty sure they just operate on reflex. I say I think democratization of production is a good thing, they say that I'm suddenly a hardcore USSR Stan and want to Purge everyone who disagrees with a Supreme leader. I truly don't think someone thinking coherently and logically can make these leaps, they must be purely operating on anti-socialist reflex.
They wouldn't even answer straight when I asked which is better, a factory that is democratically controlled, or a factory that is owned solely by a Capitalist, then said I'm as dangerous as a fascist.
Love it. Often I'll frame "better" in terms of individualism. Licking a boot as an individual is better than bargaining as a group I guess 🤷
Yep, for these people Capitalism is the only thing that has ever existed and is the only thing that will ever exist, so there's no point in advocating for better, as it can't be better. Real "end of history" neoliberal bullshit.
My point wasn't that co-ops aren't allowed. Your point was that co-operative ownership struggles with instability, and therefore would inevitably result in starvation, which is 100% false as proven by me. Moving the goal post doesn't make you correct, it makes you wrong.
There are no leftist Capitalists, that's an oxymoron. Leftism is inherently anti-capitalist, and therefore what you likely are hinting at, Social Democracy, is a center-right ideology that is still riddled with issues. It's certainly better than American Capitalism, but it does away with none of the core issues with Capitalism, it only makes them slightly more tolerable. Socialists have been learning and adapting theory ever since Socialism was founded, it hasn't stagnated in any way.
I'm on a leftist platform created by a Communist as a direct leftist alternative to Reddit because I believe in the principles of leftist organizational structure, such as a rejection of the profit motive, collective ownership, and decentralization of control.
I was making a new point. You want to force people into your system. The current system based on capitalism allows for innovation. If your system is better at a smaller level, it will succeed.
I did address the definition of left in my language. I'm sorry you are so adversarial to not be coming to this conversation in good faith.
Was the platform created by a communist or was the code created by a communist? Which instance are we on again? Should we go ahead and institute the purges early then?
Boo, the audience was enjoying the illusion of intellectual discourse you were laying and how deftly it was peeled back!
Why did you give up so soon and play the hypocrisy of the "Good faith" card? You could have continued helping the cause of leftism by continuing to be the perfect verbal sparring dummy. The think tank needs new material mate.
The think tank has forgotten how to argue with the actual left because the US democratic party is what people view as socialism. They don't even think about you anymore because people who study history know how flawed the forcible elimination of property rights is at a conceptual and functional level.
There is nothing inherently anti-capitalist about voluntary communes or coops as long as it remain voluntary, small-scale (To ensure choice), and deferent to the rules of fair play.
The good faith card was because I had already addressed Cowbee's points in my language. They were not reading my language. Ignoring their comment would be actually moving goalposts.
I want to force people to be able to democratically control production, rather than having no say whatsoever, yes. You presumably would side with the Capitalists over the Monarchists in the French Revolution, yes? Same logic, you would want to force the powerful to give up control to a larger group of people, I just want everyone to have power.
Socialism also allows for innovation, the idea that innovation is a Capitalist notion is absurd. Capitalism only goes back 400 or so years in the mainstream, yet innovation has been happening without Capitalism for all of history, and still happened in Socialist systems, such as Worker Co-operatives, or even the Soviet Union.
I'm adversarial to people pretending Capitalists are leftists, and that the left has abandoned Socialism. I'm sorry I don't agree with historical revisionism.
Lemmy was created by a Communist. The platform itself was built on leftist principles, and as such is leftist in structure. The individual instances need not be piloted by a leftist, but that doesn't mean they aren't participating in a leftist structure along leftist principles.
The joke with purges wasn't even funny, it was incredibly weak. Of course I'm anti-purge, do you want me to make the equally weak joke that you're pro-child labor and slavery? Grow up.
The ultimate issue with socialism is that the people are giving up economic power to the state. In a capitalist system, private ownership provides a check on the power of the state. You may claim that you are anti-state all you want but power consolidates. It does in a capitalist system as well. Government provides a check on private power there as well which is unacknowledged by you. What is the check on government power in a socialist system? What is the actual mechanism that ensures that one party does not become entrenched or the majority will not vote themselves a favorable position?
What is the recourse as a minority when the government decides you get less? What was the recourse for Muslims or Ukrainians when the party decided that Moscow was more important for food?
What is the recourse for Chinese minorities when the CCP decides enough capitalism to increase production is a benefit but not if they go against the party? (Fascism)
In a liberal system these types of events can still lead to violence and losers but there is an out for them. They have mobility and can leave the localized oppression. They purchase food from elsewhere or grow their own and not be beholden to the state.
More importantly, it provides competition and consequences for the state when it inevitably fails in some way. When the state fails in a socialist system, revolution happens because it is the only recourse. Then it is either genocide or radical change. Sure, you can say the state will never fail. Never is a long time and the state is made up of people.
The purge was not a joke and I don't find it funny. I think your ideology should be as unwelcome as fascism because it is just as oppressive at its core economic level. From an economics and power standpoint, there is literally no difference between full government economic power and government economic power that uses corporations as proxy. Arguably, full government economic power is worse. There's nothing inherent about socialism that says there is no racial component and you almost guarantee it when you institute majority rule and do not allow dissent.
People are gaining economic power as opposed to Capitalism, the state must be of the workers to be Socialism. I'm arguing for democratic control of production, rather than allowing it to be decided by a tiny group of people with little to no accountability a la Capitalism. The checks and balances are democracy, which doesn't exist in Capitalist production.
Why don't you have a problem with the Benghal famine then, or the Irish Great Famine? Does famine only matter if tools are collectively owned, rather than privately? This is an utter non-point, and is why democracy is important to add to production.
In liberal Capitalism, there is precisely no mobility for Workers that they would not have in Socialism. In Socialism, they can actually directly impact production.
You keep attaching mysticism to Socialism, claiming it is inevitable to fail. Purely vibes.
All in all, you're incredibly wrong. I'm arguing that workers collectively and democratically control productuon, rather than working for mini-dictators. Your argument is that mini-dictators are good, and people should have less voice, then you add random strawman arguments and claim genocide must happen because you're anti-democracy, and equate democracy to genocide. It's absurd.
I do have an issue with those famines. Famines resulting from the taking of private property by the existing power structure are perfect examples of how government control of private property results in famine for minorities.
I would prefer to not institutionalize it. Just my opinion.
If you agree that letting the hands of the few impact the many is a bad thing, then why are you in favor of limiting control of Production to the hands of the few, rather than the many?
Genuinely. If a government was democratically accountable, at all levels, why do you believe this is worse than Capitalist institutions that by definition are not democratically accountable?
Please, answer that question, if nothing else.
You are limiting the control of production to that which the few in government decide instead of literally anyone doing it. You seem to think that ownership in the West is limited strictly to the privileged and that labor is not compensated. That is where true leftist efforts have failed throughout history. The reason that laborers, engineers, and farmers in the West consistently vote against government economic control and never revolt is because they are the most compensated in society on average. This is especially true in times of hardship. The reason why people are so invested in their system is because 66% of people own their own homes. Anyone can buy enough machinery to make things and there is a robust market for handcrafted goods competing with those that are mass-produced. Additionally, no one company controls over 30% of the market in any sector so monopolies are not an issue in the eurocentric West.
The real issue with capitalism at its base is to keep a level playing field and healthy markets. That includes banning anticompetitive behaviors and good governance along with programs (That still use contracts at their base ultimately) to address externalities. The equivalent issue on the socialist side is to centrally plan literally everything as a state-sponsored monopoly that you just trust has your best interests at heart.
A government that controls production cannot be held accountable by those who need it to survive. It is a power imbalance baked into the system at a governance level. Additionally and most importantly, there is no counter to the power of government should it start to slide away from democratic accountability beyond the dissolution of the system as a whole. This is very consistent with history.
I have so far addressed all points so I am not sure why you are suggesting that I would not. I am starting to run out of energy here though. The burden of proof should not be on the existing proven system but instead that of the proposed radical change. An example of this would be the UBI tests that are occurring in various areas. In many of ways they are failing but at least they are trying to provide some proof before forcing through changes that have already been tried and failed in multiple countries and societies throughout the last hundred years; each progressing from trying decentralization, to consolidation, to ultimately a loss of trust in society in the centralized government and change back to private ownership.
No, I am advocating for democratic control, not giving all control to one or two dudes. That's what you're putting in my mouth. For example, I'm arguing for the factory to be owned by the Workers, and managed by whoever they vote for. You're the one adding the caveat of an anti-democratic central god-planner, which is nonsense.
The rest of your comment is you continuing this nonsense, so maybe I'll break it into something simple and bite-sized for you.
Factory 1: Capitalist owner, workers have no say except to leave.
Factory 2: Workers are the Owners, elect a manager, and said manager can be deposed by the Workers at will.
Why do you think having Factory 1 is better, and why do you think I'm advocating for Factory 2 to have no democracy whatsoever? Why do you think it's impossible to have a federated network of Factory 2s, that are all democratically accountable, rather than someone at the top of all of Factory 2s and no democracy?
If you keep avoiding this question and intentionally misrepresenting my point, you just further prove that you don't actually care to discuss anything.
You could even combine the efforts of the individual workers unions (Soviets) and address the production and starvation issues that the union of the soviets have been experiencing... Oh wait, that's exactly what happened. This is why these arguments get dismissed out of hand. You are rewording very old arguments and claiming they are new ideas. I am not avoiding your question. I am addressing it with history.
The big difference between workers-led organizations in a consolidated capitalist system and a socialist one is worker choice and consent. In a socialist system, they have none or it fails very quickly.
We've already explained that your claim that workers owning tools = nobody works = starvation is pure mysticism. When pressed for why, you said people would work less automatically, which is wrong, especially considering co-operative farming has worked for as long as humanity has existed, and continues to do so. Additionally, you claimed they would be less stable, which was also proven false with my example of Worker co-operatives.
I'm not asking for the Soviet Union, you keep pushing that in there as though it's the only way, and pretend that every problem the Soviet Union had must be repeated if Workers share tools. Its an utter fallacy.
Workers cannot consent to Capitalism, it exists regardless. That's like saying peasants consented to Feudalism.
The very fact that you deliberately refused to answer why Factory 1, with the Capitalist ownership, was better than Factory 2 with democratic ownership, and instead dodged, proves me exactly correct: you have nothing to stand on and merely reflexively reject everything I say. You're no different from a Monarchist during the French Revolution saying that workers wouldn't have the ability to choose to be a serf under Capitalism.
Please, explain exactly why the democratically run factory is worse than the undemocratically run factory. If you're going to continue to lie about what I'm saying and make absurd mystical claims, then I suppose I expected too much from an internet stranger.
Because capitalism has famously prevented mass starvation and warfare.
Edit: Also communism has nothing to do with a vague notion of equality.