|
V. Illych L. posted:this seems like a really bad point tbh It would be touched heavily because Torys wouldn't be trying to defund it anymore.
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2018 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 07:29 |
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:i do not understand what you're trying to get across in this post, i'm sorry BrandorKP posted:I read this as socialism as the negation of capitalism. You're saying it's socialism when the mass movement is opposing and negating capitalism. You are saying the resulting intuitions are not socialism, but that when a mass movement defends them that defense is. Would this be a correct reading of your post? Helsing posted:I believe he is arguing that an actually socialist institution would be part of a movement toward the transformation of society from capitalism to socialism. The NHS is a socialistic enterprise set up in such a way that it does not threaten and arguably even strengthens the larger capitalist system. Despite being run on more socialist principles than the rest of the economy it is still functionally just a prop used in the reproduction of capitalist social relations. I suppose that by uncop's estimation a truly socialist organization would be reproducing the conditions of socialism, i.e. it would be changing peoples daily lives or political subjectivity in such a way that it would hasten the development of socialism in other areas rather than just being an island of collectivism in a larger capitalist political economy. Sorry, I intended it to come across way more obvious. Like on the one hand there's the theoretical system of socialism as non-commodity production for the use of others (with various disagreements about whether, where and when it has existed in reality). My first post was referring to that meaning exclusively. On the other hand there's the already ongoing process of socialism as the human endeavor that has been visible as mass mobilizations since the industrial revolution and is theorized to end up having to establish a socialist system to satisfy its demands, and end up having to politically set up the working class as the ruling class to be able to start building such a system. The basic litmus test for recognizing socialism in either institutional or movement form is that it's intensely hated and tirelessly defamed because it represents a threat to society. When the hate toward a thing dissipates, it's a sign that it's not recognized anymore to have potential to change society in a manner that isn't completely subordinate to capitalism. Both Marx and Lenin occasionally used the same word (whether socialism or communism) to refer to one of the two, and Lenin theorized that the dictatorship of the proletariat would continue beyond the initial establishment of the system of socialism so the two socialisms would be occurring simultaneously sometime after the victory of socialism (the initial change in ruling classes, very confusing). V. Illych L. seemed to be critiquing my first post based on conflation of the two, that me saying that e.g. the NHS is not socialist would imply that I think the socialists who pushed for the NHS were silly to fight for a non-socialist class compromise, or that institutions like the NHS aren't worth defending. Which is not the case, it's still a great victory and a powerful symbol and relief whose dismantling for profit incites powerful emotions that can erupt to bolster (or in this case more like revive) the movement of socialism. And although there was no guarantee, I'd say it has happened. (To pre-empt the claim that the NHS already represents non-commodity production for the use of others, the commodity nature of its services is just obscured by that it's actually the public sector that is the buyer and consumer of the services. In the same way as you are the buyer and consumer of the service of repairing your car even though it's the car that gets operated on rather than you.) uncop fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Dec 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2018 22:29
|
|
|
nationalising an industry does not seem like much of a class compromise tbh - you're still measuring viable socialist projects by some hitherto unattained, and outside of trotskyist theory probably unattainable, yardstick. that it's invulnerable to direct assault, and that the attack needs to go through undermining the service as such... doesn't mean much except that this example of socialist policy is very very popular obviously the nhs exists in a context of the capitalist mode of production, and so has Issues, but i see no reasonable way of defining a socialist endeavour other than as an endeavour which would not be undertaken by anyone other than socialists for the cause of building socialism - deciding that because the tabloids don't run continuous polemics on it, it doesn't count sounds awfully arbitrary. socialism doesn't need to be directly revolutionary to be socialist, though obviously reformism is looking increasingly like a dead end; i'd argue that the standard of purity you're imposing is much too high
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 01:36
|
|
|
Why is socialism being described in such a limited fashion in this thread (and a lot of contemporary discourse in general)? Policy is a spectrum, and that goes for socialist policy, too. Can't socialist policies be judged on relative terms? Policies that reduce the influence of capital can be more socialist than capitalist without full communism now, no? Would a society where the modes of production were 90% socialized, but 10% capitalized (yes, I know that's unlikely in real life) still fairly be called socialist? And on a similar note, on what merits does a policy get judged for it's socialist impact? What's the difference between a very hostile-to-capital social democracy, and a full socialist economy? If the idea is to de-alienate us from our labor, shouldn't freedom of choice be a basic component of that (like choosing whether my surplus labor goes to luxury food or luxury clothes or luxury travel)? Abolishing currency seems counterproductive for that reason, unless everybody is given the exact same thing regardless of their preferences and choices.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 02:44
|
|
|
you could plausibly have some level of private property under socialism, though if you're at that point certainly a society where the capitalist mode of production is dominant is not, by definition, socialist, though i'd argue that it can have socialist institutions or aspects, e.g. a workers' coop or squatter's commune could count as socialist parts of an economy you're still hosed re working hours, alienation, market pressures, advertising &c, though, so a socialist society it is not
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 03:17
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:you could plausibly have some level of private property under socialism, though if you're at that point There will always be specfic items that most individuals will want to own. V. Illych L. posted:certainly a society where the capitalist mode of production is dominant is not, by definition, socialist, though i'd argue that it can have socialist institutions or aspects, e.g. a workers' coop or squatter's commune could count as socialist parts of an economy Can confirm. Not having shareholders is loving great and working for an organization accountable only to the board, the mission and the employees is pretty drat good. But half the managers still make desicions that are informed by the way for profits are run when there is no reason to. And we are staffed lean which is loving stupid. And market pressure is still what it is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 04:45
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:There will always be specfic items that most individuals will want to own. That's personal property not private property
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 23:07
|
|
|
yeah realistically widgets will still be a Thing under socialism, probably distributed through some currency or currency-like solution like if you really really like beekeeping or w/e there's no reason to have a beehive ration and force you to scrounge a medium city's worth of ration shares, no matter how centrally planned your economy is. also realistically you'll have hobbyists selling their stuff, e.g. a leatherworker selling belts and wallets to his mates. again, unless you're literally a pre-NEP bolshevik, this isn't a big deal the big problem comes with big stuff like cars or housing or things, which can quickly become a legitimate grey area. the best solution i've seen to cars is to just have mandatory car collectives, where you walk out and basically just log into the car and pay for mileage similar to current car collectives, but i have no idea how you'd make people not resent colleagues with jobs that give access to company cars and the like once you get into the nitty-gritty bits of implementing socialism it becomes very speculative very quickly, but i think it is good to have some form of vision for how things ought to be run. housing in particular is a massive problem, because quite a lot of people are going to be instantly turned off if you start talking about expropriating their home, for understandable reasons
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 00:02
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:once you get into the nitty-gritty bits of implementing socialism it becomes very speculative very quickly, but i think it is good to have some form of vision for how things ought to be run. housing in particular is a massive problem, because quite a lot of people are going to be instantly turned off if you start talking about expropriating their home, for understandable reasons i think a lot of people would be down for owning the unit expropriated from their landlord.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 00:13
|
|
|
fully-realized communism gets rid of personal property too
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 00:14
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:fully-realized communism gets rid of personal property too i am not sharing my clothes with you mate, no hard feelings
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 01:37
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:fully-realized communism gets rid of personal property too I mean in some sense of the word people have to have things that are theirs, even if it's clothing and whatever is in their pantry that they're going to cook dinner with. How would a society function where you literally have absolutely no possessions?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 02:20
|
|
|
enki42 posted:I mean in some sense of the word people have to have things that are theirs, even if it's clothing and whatever is in their pantry that they're going to cook dinner with. How would a society function where you literally have absolutely no possessions? Are we talking post scarcity or soviet rationing?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 03:23
|
|
|
enki42 posted:I mean in some sense of the word people have to have things that are theirs, even if it's clothing and whatever is in their pantry that they're going to cook dinner with. How would a society function where you literally have absolutely no possessions? read The Dispossessed Anyways, were discussing a society that's as alien to us as capitalism must gave been to feudal serfs, don't expect to know the answers
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 03:49
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Are we talking post scarcity or soviet rationing? Even in crazy Star Trek post-scarcity land people have personal possessions for hobbies, heirlooms, things like that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 05:07
|
|
|
enki42 posted:Even in crazy Star Trek post-scarcity land people have personal possessions for hobbies, heirlooms, things like that. Yes, so why are we even entertaining this hypothetical like it has some chance of happening?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 07:25
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Yes, so why are we even entertaining this hypothetical like it has some chance of happening? Your mistake for talking WJ
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 18:38
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:fully-realized communism gets rid of personal property too I hope that day comes so somebody can trash your computer
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 23:10
|
|
|
unwantedplatypus posted:I hope that day comes so somebody can trash your computer But then you would also be trashing your own computer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 23:57
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Yes, so why are we even entertaining this hypothetical like it has some chance of happening? WJ's whole gimmick is being More Leftist Than Thou while earning six figures and not paying his maids, he's going to argue that anything short of a revolution to implement Full Communism Now is totally unacceptable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 00:32
|
|
|
One of the big reasons why private ownership of the means of production is bad is that said ownership confers power to its owners, and the people at large have no democratic control over how that power is wielded (the other being that it allows the fuckers to rob the rest of us blind). And since owning a loving toothbrush in today's society doesn't give anyone any power over anybody else, it's not something that any socialist movement needs or should give a single poo poo about. That's basically the whole reason for the private versus personal property distinction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 00:38
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:WJ's whole gimmick is being More Leftist Than Thou while earning six figures and not paying his maids, he's going to argue that anything short of a revolution to implement Full Communism Now is totally unacceptable. love too be more leftist than thou
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 00:41
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:One of the big reasons why private ownership of the means of production is bad is that said ownership confers power to its owners, and the people at large have no democratic control over how that power is wielded (the other being that it allows the fuckers to rob the rest of us blind). And since owning a loving toothbrush in today's society doesn't give anyone any power over anybody else, it's not something that any socialist movement needs or should give a single poo poo about. That's basically the whole reason for the private versus personal property distinction. It's not particularly that I'm giving a poo poo about personal property, but talking about personal property after we've reached what Marx called the higher stage of communism as though it's going to necessarily support a statement like "I own my toothbrush" is making major assumptions about society will look like, with all the flawed biases that our socialization in capitalism brings with it. I'm not the one getting all bent out of shape defending personal property rights here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 00:49
|
|
|
It is absolutely astounding witnessing the mental laziness of people who look at the brutal autocracies that emerged during the revolutionary period and find socialism as the only compelling explanation when it was a far-right fascist revolution born out of violent usurpation that literally invented the concept of industrialized murder. Yes, it absolutely had to just be socialism and not: * weakened and failing conservative power structures failing to address mass suffering within * revolutionary and counter-revolutionary movements fueling cycles of violence * post-revolutionary challenge of evolving a broken feudal state via forced industrialization * immediate need to face outside existential economic, political, and military threats from world powers who actively worked to prevent any perception of ideological success No, the type of leaders and movements who emerges under these conditions wouldn't be predisposed and conditioned to violence as the default tactic to consolidate power and facilitate the rapid total restructuring of economy, production and society out of a failed feudal model. I mean, look at all the other non-socialist coups and revolutions in this time period and you will see that they were all kittens and rainbows devoid of any violent tendencies, established dictatorships, or brutal suppression of dissent. And they MOST DEFINITELY did not do so with the material aid and support of the benevolent capitalist powers as proxy in the violent suppression of leftist movements both peaceful and not. Nope, it most definitely has to do with the inherent evil that arises when workers own the means of production. And holy poo poo, there is nothing in socialist philosophy that prevents the establishment of limits IRT to regulation of speech outside of a general mental ideological framework that tends to reject deontology in favor of a results based approach. Capitalism is literally defined by its embrace of unaccountable, undemocratic institutional power structures that can and do inflict great harm both domestically and externally. It is a loving feature, not a bug. Also, the philosophical thoughts on the value and limitation of rights did not begin and end with the early Enlightment philosophers, jesus gently caress, a few philosophical musings from people steeped in a specific historical context are not magically granted unimpeachable, self-evident fact status just because it is all you have ever learned on the subject. Also, for anyone sitting on the sidelines who are concerned a 6 figure salary means you can never participate in leftist activity, you will find plenty of awesome groups and movements that would loving love you for helping. Please help. Sorry for the rant, just read the whole thread tonight, and wanted to rage impotently at the obvious bad faith actors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 09:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 07:29 |
|
|
Still true. https://twitter.com/martinjohnes/status/1073498872092258304
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2018 04:53
|
|
