Skip Navigation
116 comments

  • I think that in order to have a socialist nation you first need a nation.

    And you're not going to get that without being a power hungry lunatic.

    We're still a serfdom ruled by kings, and no amount of window dressing has changed that. At best we decide what colour hat the king will wear every four years.

  • Genuinely curious about the standard by which you evaluate whether the means of production are collectively owned. For example, one person might say that it looks like a government, representing all workers on a national scale and making decisions based on votes or elected representatives, owning all the means of production. Another person might say it looks like each industry being controlled by a union representing the workers in said industry. A third could say that it means anytime a person operates a machine, they own it and can decide what to do with it, until they stop using it.

    Is there any concievable physical reality in which it would be impossible to reasonably argue that the workers do not collectively control the means of production, because of a disagreement on which means of production should be owned by which workers and in what form? It seems like a very vague definition when you start looking beyond slogans into what it actually looks like.

    • For example, one person might say that it looks like a government, representing all workers on a national scale and making decisions based on votes or elected representatives, owning all the means of production.

      That might be relevant if the USSR was actually democratic.

      Is there any physical reality in which it would be impossible to reasonably argue that the workers do not collectively control the means of production, because of a disagreement on which means of production should be owned by which workers? It seems like a very vague definition when you start looking beyond slogans into what it actually looks like.

      "Does socialism really MEAN anything?

      "

      Really showing the libs, I see.

  • Define "collectively own".

    Ownership generally means two things:

    1. The owner gets to make decisions about the thing being owned.
    2. The fruits of the thing are directed to the benefit of the owner.

    (I'm intentionally omitting the third implication of getting a share when the thing is being sold, because that requires the concept of selling a means of production which brings us deep into the realms of capitalism)

    These things are pretty much clear-cut when it comes to individual ownership, but what do they mean in the context of collective ownership?

    • Decision Making
      • Does every decision have to unanimously supported by all the workers?
      • Or is it enough for all the workers to get a vote in every single decision regarding the thing? Note that in this case there has to be a process where decisions are brought to vote, and whoever controls that process has the real power, but let's not get into that.
      • Or is it enough for all the workers to elect someone to make these decisions every X years?
      • Or maybe it is enough for that someone makes all the decisions as long as they insist really hard that they are representing the workers?
    • Fruit Enjoyment
      • Does the product of said means of production have to be distributed directly among all the workers who own it?
      • Or is it enough to sell the product (a process which require some concepts from capitalism, but let's not go there) for some commodity and split that commodity among all the workers?
      • Or maybe it's enough for the product can be put toward projects that are supposed to benefit all the workers?

  • This is an extremely important point you just made! Pure socialism is impossible for humanity due to the individuals that are so easily corruptible. We need a system similar to socialism, capitalism, AND communism, that takes the best of all of them, abandones the worst, and compensates properly for human nature. Human nature is why everything fails, not the theoretical systems themselves. Theoretically they work.

    • Colloquial definitions of socialism, capitalism, and communism differ strongly from the proper usage of the terms.

    • I would actually argue that money -- and not human nature -- is the point of failure. To be more specific, money's capacity for growth.

      The second you have the growth associated with a store of value (the ability to spend $100 and get back $110), you have the capacity for different piles of value to grow at different rates (depending on things like luck, ruthlessness, and cleverness) without being limited by a single human's ability to labor.

      And when you have different piles of money growing at different rates with no upper limit, you have some growing so fast that they become cancerous, sucking the resources out of the entire system.

      It's both better and worse having this problem than having one of human nature. Worse because growth is an even more universal part of nature than greed. (So we can't get rid of it.) Better because it's something we are intimately familiar with trying to contain. We have surgeries for rapid cellular growths. We have antibiotics for rapid bacterial growths. We have entire forestry organizations that release hunting licenses dedicated to containing rapid deer population growth.

      Growth is an incredibly simple, two-dimensional graph, and it's easy to tell when we're controlling a growth vs succumbing to it.

      • The second you have the growth associated with a store of value (the ability to spend $100 and get back $110), you have the capacity for different piles of value to grow at different rates (depending on things like luck, ruthlessness, and cleverness) without being limited by a single human’s ability to labor.

        That's all material value, though?

116 comments