Socialism is when the workers own the means of production in a usufruct property relation.
What’s IMHO more important is the anarchist definition of a state: A state is the hierarchical power structure which alienates the people from the business of their everyday lives.
If you have a state alienating the workers from their everyday business. That doesn’t make a state socialist. The whole notion is an idealist illusion.
I think that definition of socialism is insufficient. It sounds like an end-goal. I thought we were all communists. We wanted the dissolution of all hierarchy, of the state and of classes, of money and work.
Socialism was then just born as a way to define what comes right after capitalism, and right before communism.
We can still all agree that those are two different socialisms in themselves. It won’t look the same right after capitalism from right before communism.
But getting back to it, how does your socialism maintain itself without markets? How does it protect itself? How does it function without regulations? You imply a state with your definition and don’t even realise it.
Jumping in to hopefully clarify something. The anarchist definition of the state is different than the Marxist definition of the state.
The anarchist definition of socialism is also different than the Marxist definition of socialism. Generally speaking, to anarchists, socialism and communism are synonyms, and there really isn’t the lower/higher phase distinction.
State capitalism is a term used to describe the economic systems of places like the USSR. The state steps in and becomes the capitalist, in essence. The worker is in a similar position of not really owning the means of production, in the same way that the public doesn’t really national parks in the US. In paper, in theory, and perhaps in spirit, the workers in a socialist state own the means of production, but in reality it is owned by the [the party/the state/an elite group of people]. There is still a similar incentive towards growth, there is still a group of people profiting off the backs of those who do the actual work of creating the items needed for survival, and there still a disconnected between those who do the labor of keeping all of us fed and clothed and the use of those things. Workers are not directly in control, and that’s the problem, to the anarchist view.
Effectively, the anarchist is view that we can and should move directly from our current system to a stateless (by the anarchist definition of the state), classless, moneyless system, without an intermediary state in between.
I do understand all that. But explain this, how are all these commodity producing worker owned business regulated? How do they operate on a market? Who sets and controls this market? Who ensures collective property of the means of production?
Socialism as an economic model with the workers owning the means of production kinda still has commodity production, money etc. otherwise the whole concept of a collectively owned business makes no sense.
Unless you advocate for the complete atomization of groups into self-sufficient cells that have no organisation between them, to me you are still describing a state.
Also, can’t workers be in direct control of their means of production in a socialist state? What mechanically or physically impedes that? Like coops were a major part of the soviet model, right?
How long do you envision the transition from capitalism to socialism/communism to take then?
(Also also, Marx did talk a lot about “lower stage” communism or socialism later in life. Also about how a revolution could move towards a completely free worker’s state instead of going through an authoritarian phase - he had correspondence with a revolutionary peasant woman in Russia about this it’s really interesting, if I find it I’ll share).
I jumped in to define some terms it looked like there might be confusion on (though it looks like I might have been wrong?), I’m not here to defend any positions. Haha. I have my views, but I find very little benefit to arguing them online, especially when my views are already niche within leftist spaces.
All that said, super psyched to read that correspondence!
I think that definition of socialism is insufficient. It sounds like an end-goal. I thought we were all communists. We wanted the dissolution of all hierarchy, of the state and of classes, of money and work.
Wait, what’s the end-goal, then? Socialism, or the dissolution of all hierarchies?
Socialism is an economic mode, not necessarily an end-goal. Worker’s ownership of the means of production is a clear, consice, and not ideologically chargeddefinition.
Socialism was then just born as a way to define what comes right after capitalism, and right before communism.
That’s what Lenin invented, without ever really relying on a clear definition of the term. (Marx used “communism” and “socialism” interchangeably)
In the end, everything the Bolsheviki did was defined as “socialism”, robbing the term of any proper meaning. Hell, even China claims that it is “socialist”.
We can still all agree that those are two different socialisms in themselves. It won’t look the same right after capitalism from right before communism.
I don’t really agree that societal development necessarily happens in these stages, so I don’t really agree with your premise of clearly defined stages between “capitalism” and “communism”. It’s too focused on Hegelian dialectics, while I want to focus more on systems analysis.
But getting back to it, how does your socialism maintain itself without markets? How does it protect itself?
I’m not really in the mood to explain a complete hypothetical socialist political system, just because you don’t accept the most common definition of socialism. I can insteand direct you to the anarchist FAQ. There, they broadly address economics, self-defense and other questions you might have.
Marxism rejects Hegelian dialectics, which are Idealist, in favor of Dialectical Materialism. DiaMat does not believe that societal development necessarily happens in clear cut stages, but that each stage of development contians within it both elements of the previous stage, and the next stage. The next “stage” is not necessarily the same! There are numerous paths, but the resolving of these conflicting elements, or “contradictions,” is what drives change.
That’s why Marxists say development isn’t a straight line, but spirals.
Marx’s version is still way too focused on Kegelian dialectics. You can glance that fact by noticing the “dialectical” part of dialectical materialism.
It retains the dialectical aspect and rejects the idealist. Why do you say it is “too” focused on Hegelian Dialectics? Which parts of Dialectics that Marx took from Hegel retain Hegel’s idealist flaws? What ought Marx have continued to leave behind?
While I agree in principle with you (except for where a socialist state is basically capitalism?!), I disagree very much with your condescending tone. The other person you were commenting on has obviously not got what you meant and you dismissed them outright as a tankie.
I just listened a bit into the video until the guy talked about that the means have to be in line with ends. If you are a prick like this to other people enjoying your power of knowledge over them you definitely won’t get to a compassionate community free of hierarchies. Same goes for the guy in the video, reeking of male privilege.
So why not give people a chance to learn something? (Except if they are trolling of course.)
If you have to tone police me, please consider the comment before, at least. If someone’s rude to me, I don’t see the necessity to calmly explain how I meant this or that meme I quickly stiched together.
I just listened a bit into the video until the guy talked about that the means have to be in line with ends. If you are a prick like this to other people enjoying your power of knowledge over them you definitely won’t get to a compassionate community free of hierarchies.
Sir, this is a Wendy’s
Same goes for the guy in the video, reeking of male privilege.
That’s a comment I really donwt get. That’s a low production value educational video. Where does Anark show any arrogance or even “male privilege”? He simply tries to get some concepts of anarchist thought in systems theory across. Did the tone of my comment prime your viewing of the video, perhaps?
Denying that State Socialism exists at all is to deny the entirety of Marxism and discredits Anarchism as well. You don’t have to deny Marxism being Socialist to be an Anarchist, all denying even the validity of Marxism does is weaken the leftist movement with sectarianism.
Democratically accountable administrative positions do not beget a monopolization of power except in the Class that controls the state. In a Socialist, worker owned state, this does not result in increased power in fewer and fewer hands, as there is no accumulation.
Again, you can be an Anarchist, but stating that Socialism cannot have a State is absurd.
Denying that State Socialism exists at all is to deny the entirety of Marxism
No, only Marxism-Leninism, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, etc. I can stomach that, as I don’t really care for Lenin and those that succeeded him.
and discredits Anarchism as well
I’m curious: please explain how it discredits anarchism.
all denying even the validity of Marxism does is weaken the leftist movement with sectarianism
Historically, whenever authoritarian leftists claimed that they’re all about “left unity”, they usually turned on anarchists as soon as they had the chance. Thanks, I’ll pass.
Democratically accountable administrative positions do not beget a monopolization of power except in the Class that controls the state. In a Socialist, worker owned state, this does not result in increased power in fewer and fewer hands, as there is no accumulation.
As soon as you have a state which owns the means of production, the workers aren’t the ones who own those means, but rather a new class of bureaucrats. That monopolisation and concentration of power is intrinsic to so-called stats-socialism. Which is why I call it state-capitalism. The burgeoisie is merely replaced by the class of bureaucrats.
Again, you can be an Anarchist, but stating that Socialism cannot have a State is absurd.
No, it’s consistent with my beliefs and definitions.
Lenin and Mao were not the ones who came up with the necessity of a Worker State, Marx was. You can disregard Lenin and Mao if you want, Marx still firmly advocated for a worker-state. This is plainly spelled out in both The Communist Manifesto and Critique of the Gotha Programme. Marx was no Anarchist! He regularly argued against Bakunin.
When I say denying Worker States as a valid form of Socialism discredits Anarchism, I mean that you reveal yourself as an Anarchist that doesn’t believe Marxism is Socialist. That makes Anarchists look bad, and is purely sectarian.
Anarchists historically have fought Marxists as well. You can pass on long-term unity, but in the short term the only viable path to Socialism is a mass-worker coalition. You can argue why you believe Anarchism to be better, but by making enemies of other Leftists you weaken the movement and thus solidarity. I personally don’t waste my time disparaging the hard work of good Anarchist comrades.
As soon as you have a state which owns the means of production, the workers aren’t the ones who own those means, but rather a new class of bureaucrats. That monopolisation and concentration of power is intrinsic to so-called stats-socialism. Which is why I call it state-capitalism. The burgeoisie is merely replaced by the class of bureaucrats.
This is wrong! If the Workers run the state and thus control the allocation of its products, it fundamentally is not Captalism. Does the manager of your local post office own that branch? No! Does the secratary of transportation own the US public transit system? No! Managing a system is not ownership, and production whose results are owned and directed in common are not used for accumulation in an M-C-M’ circuit. The Bourgeoisie are not replaced by beaurocrats, because beaurocrats merely manage Capital, they do not rent-seek.
Marxism is fundamentally Socialist, all you’ve done is display a lack of understanding why Capitalism itself is truly bad and must be eliminated.
Lenin and Mao were not the ones who came up with the necessity of a Worker State, Marx was.
One thing anarchists are objectively better at is accepting flaws in the people who wrote anarchist theory. Marx was capable of holding believs that were internally inconsistent. History has proven Bakunin right and Marx couldn’t have known this. Just because a socialist state is an oxymoron doesn’t make Marx a not-socialist.
Marx was no Anarchist! He regularly argued against Bakunin.
I know.
I mean that you reveal yourself as an Anarchist that doesn’t believe Marxism is Socialist.
It has a fatal contradictionin its’ worldview, yes.
That makes Anarchists look bad, and is purely sectarian.
Being consistent in my beliefs makes anarchists look bad? O.o
Anarchists historically have fought Marxists as well. You can pass on long-term unity, but in the short term the only viable path to Socialism is a mass-worker coalition. You can argue why you believe Anarchism to be better, but by making enemies of other Leftists you weaken the movement and thus solidarity. I personally don’t waste my time disparaging the hard work of good Anarchist comrades.
ML vanguards have betrayed anarchists way too often. Broad coalitions: yes, please. But not under the direction of authoritarian commies.
This is wrong! […]
Yeah, you didn’t get my point about that class of bureaucrats, did you? That’s why MLism is fundamentally idealist.
Marxism is fundamentally Socialist, all you’ve done is display a lack of understanding why Capitalism itself is truly bad and must be eliminated.
One thing anarchists are objectively better at is accepting flaws in the people who wrote anarchist theory. Marx was capable of holding believs that were internally inconsistent. History has proven Bakunin right and Marx couldn’t have known this. Just because a socialist state is an oxymoron doesn’t make Marx a not-socialist.
None of that was objective, and you concluded that point by saying “just because I say I am right and Marx is wrong doesn’t mean Marx wasn’t a Socialist.” Like, I would love for you to provide me with a point to discuss, but you didn’t so we can’t.
You continue to just say you’re correct, there’s nothing to respond to here.
I understood your point on Beaurocrats in Worker States. Correct me if I am wrong, but your central claim is that hierarchy inherently results in class distinctions, yes?
The problem with that statement is that you equate management to ownership, falsely. Capitalism is bad because it results in exploitation due to the central conflict between workers and owners, in Capitalism, the workers have no say or ownership of the products of their labor, Capitalists do, who through competition seek more and more share of Capital at the expense of Workers.
In a Worker State, this does not exist. Competition does not exist, and Workers democratically direct their labor. Instead of all profits going into the pockets of Capitalists, who purchase more Capital in a never-ending M-C-M’ circuit, in a Worker State beaurocrats assist with planning and distribution of resources. These beaurocrats are elected by workers, the entire state is of the Proletariat, and rather than going into the pockets of Capitalists, profit is distributed towards social safety nets by the workers.
The fact that you see hierarchy as the central problem of Capitalism, and not competition, the profit motive, and worker exploitation, is why I said you don’t understand the fundamental issues of Capitalism. Hierarchy isn’t class.
It’s incredibly rude to simply state that I just don’t understand your points and then snark, rather than addressing mine in return. Rather than having a productive conversation, you just wish to be divisive and sectarian.
You’re not really engaging with my points but are rather interested in writing walls of text. Probably to show off how smart you supposedly are. You can continue to do so. But I’d rather not engage if the other person likes to read their own words that much. Have fun!
What did I not engage with? At the very least, confirm whether or not I correctly interpreted your point about hierarchy, like I asked. You gave me nothing to work off of.
Found a tankie!
There is no such thing as a socialist state. That’s state capitalism
The reasoning is based on two axioms of anarchist system theory:
I don’t know if he came up with that theoretical framework, but I got those ideas from Anark. Check him out.
You may disagree with the idea of the necessity of a socialist state, but saying it’s “not a thing” is just ignorant.
What even is socialism to you?
Socialism is when the workers own the means of production in a usufruct property relation.
What’s IMHO more important is the anarchist definition of a state: A state is the hierarchical power structure which alienates the people from the business of their everyday lives.
If you have a state alienating the workers from their everyday business. That doesn’t make a state socialist. The whole notion is an idealist illusion.
I think that definition of socialism is insufficient. It sounds like an end-goal. I thought we were all communists. We wanted the dissolution of all hierarchy, of the state and of classes, of money and work.
Socialism was then just born as a way to define what comes right after capitalism, and right before communism.
We can still all agree that those are two different socialisms in themselves. It won’t look the same right after capitalism from right before communism.
But getting back to it, how does your socialism maintain itself without markets? How does it protect itself? How does it function without regulations? You imply a state with your definition and don’t even realise it.
Jumping in to hopefully clarify something. The anarchist definition of the state is different than the Marxist definition of the state.
The anarchist definition of socialism is also different than the Marxist definition of socialism. Generally speaking, to anarchists, socialism and communism are synonyms, and there really isn’t the lower/higher phase distinction.
State capitalism is a term used to describe the economic systems of places like the USSR. The state steps in and becomes the capitalist, in essence. The worker is in a similar position of not really owning the means of production, in the same way that the public doesn’t really national parks in the US. In paper, in theory, and perhaps in spirit, the workers in a socialist state own the means of production, but in reality it is owned by the [the party/the state/an elite group of people]. There is still a similar incentive towards growth, there is still a group of people profiting off the backs of those who do the actual work of creating the items needed for survival, and there still a disconnected between those who do the labor of keeping all of us fed and clothed and the use of those things. Workers are not directly in control, and that’s the problem, to the anarchist view.
Effectively, the anarchist is view that we can and should move directly from our current system to a stateless (by the anarchist definition of the state), classless, moneyless system, without an intermediary state in between.
I do understand all that. But explain this, how are all these commodity producing worker owned business regulated? How do they operate on a market? Who sets and controls this market? Who ensures collective property of the means of production?
Socialism as an economic model with the workers owning the means of production kinda still has commodity production, money etc. otherwise the whole concept of a collectively owned business makes no sense.
Unless you advocate for the complete atomization of groups into self-sufficient cells that have no organisation between them, to me you are still describing a state.
Also, can’t workers be in direct control of their means of production in a socialist state? What mechanically or physically impedes that? Like coops were a major part of the soviet model, right?
How long do you envision the transition from capitalism to socialism/communism to take then?
(Also also, Marx did talk a lot about “lower stage” communism or socialism later in life. Also about how a revolution could move towards a completely free worker’s state instead of going through an authoritarian phase - he had correspondence with a revolutionary peasant woman in Russia about this it’s really interesting, if I find it I’ll share).
found it
I jumped in to define some terms it looked like there might be confusion on (though it looks like I might have been wrong?), I’m not here to defend any positions. Haha. I have my views, but I find very little benefit to arguing them online, especially when my views are already niche within leftist spaces.
All that said, super psyched to read that correspondence!
Wait, what’s the end-goal, then? Socialism, or the dissolution of all hierarchies?
Socialism is an economic mode, not necessarily an end-goal. Worker’s ownership of the means of production is a clear, consice, and not ideologically chargeddefinition.
That’s what Lenin invented, without ever really relying on a clear definition of the term. (Marx used “communism” and “socialism” interchangeably) In the end, everything the Bolsheviki did was defined as “socialism”, robbing the term of any proper meaning. Hell, even China claims that it is “socialist”.
I don’t really agree that societal development necessarily happens in these stages, so I don’t really agree with your premise of clearly defined stages between “capitalism” and “communism”. It’s too focused on Hegelian dialectics, while I want to focus more on systems analysis.
I’m not really in the mood to explain a complete hypothetical socialist political system, just because you don’t accept the most common definition of socialism. I can insteand direct you to the anarchist FAQ. There, they broadly address economics, self-defense and other questions you might have.
Marxism rejects Hegelian dialectics, which are Idealist, in favor of Dialectical Materialism. DiaMat does not believe that societal development necessarily happens in clear cut stages, but that each stage of development contians within it both elements of the previous stage, and the next stage. The next “stage” is not necessarily the same! There are numerous paths, but the resolving of these conflicting elements, or “contradictions,” is what drives change.
That’s why Marxists say development isn’t a straight line, but spirals.
Marx’s version is still way too focused on Kegelian dialectics. You can glance that fact by noticing the “dialectical” part of dialectical materialism.
It retains the dialectical aspect and rejects the idealist. Why do you say it is “too” focused on Hegelian Dialectics? Which parts of Dialectics that Marx took from Hegel retain Hegel’s idealist flaws? What ought Marx have continued to leave behind?
Marx didn’t have system theory back then. We have systems theory now. Why use an outdated form of sociological analysis?
While I agree in principle with you (except for where a socialist state is basically capitalism?!), I disagree very much with your condescending tone. The other person you were commenting on has obviously not got what you meant and you dismissed them outright as a tankie.
I just listened a bit into the video until the guy talked about that the means have to be in line with ends. If you are a prick like this to other people enjoying your power of knowledge over them you definitely won’t get to a compassionate community free of hierarchies. Same goes for the guy in the video, reeking of male privilege.
So why not give people a chance to learn something? (Except if they are trolling of course.)
If you have to tone police me, please consider the comment before, at least. If someone’s rude to me, I don’t see the necessity to calmly explain how I meant this or that meme I quickly stiched together.
Sir, this is a Wendy’s
That’s a comment I really donwt get. That’s a low production value educational video. Where does Anark show any arrogance or even “male privilege”? He simply tries to get some concepts of anarchist thought in systems theory across. Did the tone of my comment prime your viewing of the video, perhaps?
Denying that State Socialism exists at all is to deny the entirety of Marxism and discredits Anarchism as well. You don’t have to deny Marxism being Socialist to be an Anarchist, all denying even the validity of Marxism does is weaken the leftist movement with sectarianism.
Democratically accountable administrative positions do not beget a monopolization of power except in the Class that controls the state. In a Socialist, worker owned state, this does not result in increased power in fewer and fewer hands, as there is no accumulation.
Again, you can be an Anarchist, but stating that Socialism cannot have a State is absurd.
No, only Marxism-Leninism, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, etc. I can stomach that, as I don’t really care for Lenin and those that succeeded him.
I’m curious: please explain how it discredits anarchism.
Historically, whenever authoritarian leftists claimed that they’re all about “left unity”, they usually turned on anarchists as soon as they had the chance. Thanks, I’ll pass.
As soon as you have a state which owns the means of production, the workers aren’t the ones who own those means, but rather a new class of bureaucrats. That monopolisation and concentration of power is intrinsic to so-called stats-socialism. Which is why I call it state-capitalism. The burgeoisie is merely replaced by the class of bureaucrats.
No, it’s consistent with my beliefs and definitions.
Lenin and Mao were not the ones who came up with the necessity of a Worker State, Marx was. You can disregard Lenin and Mao if you want, Marx still firmly advocated for a worker-state. This is plainly spelled out in both The Communist Manifesto and Critique of the Gotha Programme. Marx was no Anarchist! He regularly argued against Bakunin.
When I say denying Worker States as a valid form of Socialism discredits Anarchism, I mean that you reveal yourself as an Anarchist that doesn’t believe Marxism is Socialist. That makes Anarchists look bad, and is purely sectarian.
Anarchists historically have fought Marxists as well. You can pass on long-term unity, but in the short term the only viable path to Socialism is a mass-worker coalition. You can argue why you believe Anarchism to be better, but by making enemies of other Leftists you weaken the movement and thus solidarity. I personally don’t waste my time disparaging the hard work of good Anarchist comrades.
This is wrong! If the Workers run the state and thus control the allocation of its products, it fundamentally is not Captalism. Does the manager of your local post office own that branch? No! Does the secratary of transportation own the US public transit system? No! Managing a system is not ownership, and production whose results are owned and directed in common are not used for accumulation in an M-C-M’ circuit. The Bourgeoisie are not replaced by beaurocrats, because beaurocrats merely manage Capital, they do not rent-seek.
Marxism is fundamentally Socialist, all you’ve done is display a lack of understanding why Capitalism itself is truly bad and must be eliminated.
One thing anarchists are objectively better at is accepting flaws in the people who wrote anarchist theory. Marx was capable of holding believs that were internally inconsistent. History has proven Bakunin right and Marx couldn’t have known this. Just because a socialist state is an oxymoron doesn’t make Marx a not-socialist.
I know.
It has a fatal contradictionin its’ worldview, yes.
Being consistent in my beliefs makes anarchists look bad? O.o
ML vanguards have betrayed anarchists way too often. Broad coalitions: yes, please. But not under the direction of authoritarian commies.
Yeah, you didn’t get my point about that class of bureaucrats, did you? That’s why MLism is fundamentally idealist.
sure. /s
None of that was objective, and you concluded that point by saying “just because I say I am right and Marx is wrong doesn’t mean Marx wasn’t a Socialist.” Like, I would love for you to provide me with a point to discuss, but you didn’t so we can’t.
You continue to just say you’re correct, there’s nothing to respond to here.
I understood your point on Beaurocrats in Worker States. Correct me if I am wrong, but your central claim is that hierarchy inherently results in class distinctions, yes?
The problem with that statement is that you equate management to ownership, falsely. Capitalism is bad because it results in exploitation due to the central conflict between workers and owners, in Capitalism, the workers have no say or ownership of the products of their labor, Capitalists do, who through competition seek more and more share of Capital at the expense of Workers.
In a Worker State, this does not exist. Competition does not exist, and Workers democratically direct their labor. Instead of all profits going into the pockets of Capitalists, who purchase more Capital in a never-ending M-C-M’ circuit, in a Worker State beaurocrats assist with planning and distribution of resources. These beaurocrats are elected by workers, the entire state is of the Proletariat, and rather than going into the pockets of Capitalists, profit is distributed towards social safety nets by the workers.
The fact that you see hierarchy as the central problem of Capitalism, and not competition, the profit motive, and worker exploitation, is why I said you don’t understand the fundamental issues of Capitalism. Hierarchy isn’t class.
It’s incredibly rude to simply state that I just don’t understand your points and then snark, rather than addressing mine in return. Rather than having a productive conversation, you just wish to be divisive and sectarian.
You’re not really engaging with my points but are rather interested in writing walls of text. Probably to show off how smart you supposedly are. You can continue to do so. But I’d rather not engage if the other person likes to read their own words that much. Have fun!
What did I not engage with? At the very least, confirm whether or not I correctly interpreted your point about hierarchy, like I asked. You gave me nothing to work off of.
You’re constantly misunderstanding me and prefer to lecture me to actually engaging with what I said.