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?
That’s Dialectical Materialism in another name. Dialectical Materialism chiefly states that everything is connected and cannot be taken in a vacuum without looking at its past, trajectory, and relations.
I ask again, what specifically is wrong with Marxian Dialectical Materialism? Am I under a mistaken assumption on what you are specifically referring to by saying Systems Theory is “superior?”
Put another way, what does Systems Theory add that is incompatible with Dialectical Materialism?
Put another way, what does Systems Theory add that is incompatible with Dialectical Materialism?
One example: Marx had the notion that mankind lives in a cruel world which needs to be conquered. Dialectical materialism ignores the natural framework we live in. It doesn’t take ecosystems and climate change into account. That’s a reason why Bookchin expanded on it with what he called “dialectical naturalism”.
But marxists rarely if ever read Bookchin, in my experience.
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?
That’s Dialectical Materialism in another name. Dialectical Materialism chiefly states that everything is connected and cannot be taken in a vacuum without looking at its past, trajectory, and relations.
I ask again, what specifically is wrong with Marxian Dialectical Materialism? Am I under a mistaken assumption on what you are specifically referring to by saying Systems Theory is “superior?”
Put another way, what does Systems Theory add that is incompatible with Dialectical Materialism?
One example: Marx had the notion that mankind lives in a cruel world which needs to be conquered. Dialectical materialism ignores the natural framework we live in. It doesn’t take ecosystems and climate change into account. That’s a reason why Bookchin expanded on it with what he called “dialectical naturalism”.
But marxists rarely if ever read Bookchin, in my experience.