Basic questions regarding Socialism

[ALB]

Alexander Reiswich wrote:

ALB, thanks for the clarifications.I'm slightly suprised that you seem to be in full agreement with the principle of non-aggression. I'm sorry to say that this is usually not obvious when I read socialist writing. I can make the friendly recommendation to put more emphasis on it. It makes everything so much simpler :)I have no more questions if you agree with the consequences of the value I suggested, other than perhaps: do you personally feel that you represent the mainstream of the socialist party, or are you in the minority in that respect?

We are talking here about after when socialism as a society of common ownership, democratic control, production directly for use and not for sale or profit, and distribution on the principle "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs", has been established. Yes, as the Conference resolution I quoted shows, it is the official position of the Socialist Party that there will be no coercive state machine in socialism. We have always said that socialism can only be a classless, stateless, moneyless, wageless society.Having said that, we are not absolute pacifists. If any group of pro-capitalists decided to take up arms to try to stop the democratically-expressed majority will to establish socialism we think that the majority would be justified to use armed force against them as a last resort. And of course, to establish socialism, we do want to use the coercive power of the state to dispossess the capitalist class of their ownership of the means of production and make these the common property of the whole community. But, this done, the coercive state is then dismantled and replaced by an unarmed democratic central administration.

[Anonymous]

Alexander Reiswich wrote:

ALB, thanks for the clarifications. My point is this: when you say that you value free access to world's resources, etc., I believe that there is a deeper underlying value, as for instance: it's good to share material goods with people who need them. 

 Nothing to do with values just economic necessity. 

[Alexander Reiswich]

ALB: Excellent, it seems that, perhaps surprisingly, there is not that much difference between capitalists and socialists other than the fact that former would prefer to have a means of exchange while the latter would prefer to do without.I would be happy if we (as a society) could agree not to force proponents of these two approaches to solely use either one. TheOldGreyWhistle: Well, I would pose that you can only say it's necessary because you value a fair and prosperous society.In other words, if you believed that societies should be unequal and miserable, you would probably not say that sharing with others is an economic necessity. twc: I think the social analysis you propose is pretty accurate in the sense that cycle (1) is clearly necessary if we want to have a functioning society and that it is currently indeed distorted for the benefit of those who possess capital, but do not create anything, and to the detriment of the majority of people, the actual working class.But you seem to be a little confused when it comes to values – why do you defend the "natural" cycle of social reproduction whilst attacking its corruption by the "capitalist class"? Clearly, it's because you value a functioning, positive, fair society and you are convinced that a socialist system is the proper approach towards that goal.In other words, there are values that underly your socio-economic position. They lead you towards it.And those are the values I'm interested in – not the values that people will hold once socialism has been established. At the moment, it eludes me as to why you seem to be denying to hold such basic values. But it is to your own detriment.It prevents you from seeing what is at the core of our social problems. No, it's not money, neither is it "greed" or political corruption or even capitalism itself.I can confidently say that because none of these things prevent you and every other advocate of socialism from going forth and founding a socialist city or state or even merely not participating in the current system by not using the means of exchange as devised by the state to facilitate this system.What prevents you from doing that is force.But it has nothing to do with the capitalists you criticize – apple and walmart can't force you to buy their products or work for them. But the government can (and it does).You would be completely correct in saying that the "capitalist class" has much greater influence over the government than the "working class". As such, they promote the creation of laws that benefit them, to the detriment of the general population, as you have already eloquently described.But that all would be completely irrelevant if we all weren't forced to participate in this system!You put all your concentration in fighting against the symptoms while completeley ignoring the actual cause of our problems. Earlier, I proposed as the most basic value to respect the autonomy of other people's bodies, actions and thoughts.It's something that most people agree with, as they do not, for the most time, try to enslave, rape and kill others.However, that value is practically meaningless when it comes to the government, which can at will disregard the autonomy of other people's bodies and actions and to some extent even thoughts.That is the core of our social issues. My fear is that if the socialist movement doesn't fully understand this fact, they will fail as catastrophically as all other attempts to establish socialism in history.But please do correct me if I'm wrong and the force of the state is not what actually prevents you from realizing a socialist society, as well as what makes all the economic abominations (i.e. the banking system, monopolies, debt, etc.) that we experience now even possible.

[Brian]

Alexander Reiswich wrote:

But please do correct me if I'm wrong and the force of the state is not what actually prevents you from realizing a socialist society, as well as what makes all the economic abominations (i.e. the banking system, monopolies, debt, etc.) that we experience now even possible.

You are wrong!  Indeed, what actually prevents the world socialist movement from realizing a socialist society is the lack of a socialist majority.  For without this majority we are in no position to take on the force of the state.   With this majority we are transformed into the strongest army in the world where the productive class becomes a class for itself.  In actual fact under such circumstances it wont be the world socialist movement who will realize a socialist society but the workers themselves who may if they so which use us as the vehicle to negotiate the revolutionary transformation.

[ALB]

Brian wrote:

what actually prevents the world socialist movement from realizing a socialist society is the lack of a socialist majority.  For without this majority we are in no position to take on the force of the state. With this majority we are transformed into the strongest army in the world where the productive class becomes a class for itself.

Or as Victor Hugo put it:

Quote:

No army can stop an idea whose time has come.

[twc]

Thank you for guiding us through our confusion.First we ignored ethics. Then we ignored values. Finally we ignored government force.We remained ignorant before our fortunate exposure to your everyday bourgeois modes of thought and practice, which somehow we managed to miss.Ideals, Ethics and Values are Ineffectual

Quote:

why do you defend the "natural" cycle (1) of social reproduction whilst attacking its corruption cycle (2) by the "capitalist class"?Clearly, it's because you value a functioning, positive, fair societyand you are convinced that a socialist system is the proper approach towards that goal.In other words, there are values that underly your socio-economic position. They lead you towards it.

Yes, I do assent to (2) and (3). But my assent is not fundamental — as you blithely assume. My assent is consequential.You assert the fundamental motiving power of deep ideals, ethics, values — the furthest a bourgeois brain can fathom.Did it ever occur to you that every human being and every social movement assents to (2)? And yet none can actuate it.Did it ever occur to you that people daily seek to fulfill (2), partly because they are impelled to by the necessity to keep cycle (2) ticking over? And yet they fail to achieve it.Did it ever occur to you that essentially all political movements towards implementing capitalism — numbering dozens even within the 20th century alone — assented to (3)? None called itself a “[pro-]capitalist” party; but instead all called themselves “social” (Mussolini) or “socialist” (Hitler), alongside the multitudinous avowedly “communist” parties. Why is this so, if they didn’t assent to (3)? Yet none of them could actuate (3).People and movements that place sublime trust in the efficacy of ideals are deterministically doomed to failure through the objective determinism of having to implement and to be subservient to cycle (2), whose overwhelming objective determinism over-rides all ideals, whether grand or tawdry.The necessity of cycle (2) turned them all — Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Castro, et tutti frutti — into their detested opposites: witting or unwitting capitalists.An objective determinism that derails the most strongly held ideals, ethics and values is some powerful determinism.But look at it the other way. Ideals, ethics and values that succumb to social necessity are feeble indeed. If they succumb to deterministic necessity they are proven to be illusory.What other proof do we need that something is illusory if it proves to be ineffectual?So, no! Contrary to your wildest dreams, I don’t assent to (4). Nor should any socialist.Liberty, Equality, FraternityThe French bourgeoisie fought their Revolution under the banner of bourgeois ideals — the rights of man. Ours is the world they implemented.Our world substitutes capitalist liberty for feudal dependence, capitalist equality for feudal hierarchy, market fraternity for feudal dominance.But the great transformative motivating ideals, ethics and values remain unrealized. They are proven to be ineffectual.Did it ever occur to you that that’s precisely why these universally grandiose ideals, ethics and values are so readily tolerated — even encouraged and embraced — by class societies. That it is precisely because they are safely unattainable that they constitute the great bulwarks, the great buttresses, of class societies. For class tyrannies, their very ineffectuality is their supreme virtue.Did it ever occur to you that precisely because the great vaunted ideals remain remotely abstract they constitute an irresistible attraction to pontificating “philosophers” who lord their critiques of apparent social stupidities by haughtily sneering at the, to them non-understandable, practical behaviour of common humanity compelled to suffer under social necessities — just as you haughtily scoff. It is ever so easy to scoff at uncomprehended deterministic behaviour.Not only are the great ideals tolerated by those who prosper precisely because they violate them, they are actively promoted as inspiring and motivational — the very things you want to guide us by. Such tainted intellectual goods can only succeed in suffusing a commonly shared aura around a class-divided world — a communal aura that sanctions the vicious actuality of class-divided societies whose very essence these ideals deterministically contravene.The origin of these semi-universal ideals must therefore be sought in the very conditions of social reproduction [for capitalism, in cycle (2)] that they must deterministically arise out of. The link is far too strong to be otherwise.These fine ideals are the exact opposite of our harsh social actuality. That they emerge as motivating social ideals implies that we need them as social actualities. Why else would they emerge?That they persist as motivating ideals implies that social reproduction [cycle (2)] systematically violates them, day in day out. They are reproduced as unattainable.That we can’t realize these ideals is the great critique of our present social actuality.It was Feuerbach who first gained an inkling into a specific instance of this general social-inversion process. He comprehended the essence of Christianity as the distillation of everything fine humanity hopes for in the actuality of mankind.It was Marx, standing on Feuerbach’s shoulders, who saw further that this ideal distillation of actuality was an unconscious critique of the society — social formation — that needed it.Marx was able to prove the great social generality that, through the necessity of cycles (1) and (2), the social relations and consciousness required to prosecute these indispensable cycles is deterministic of our ideals, ethics, values and even our government and its forces — the very things you calumniate against us as totally ignoring.Well, yes, we do ignore them — at least the ideals — as motivators with good reason. But we believe we have a fair chance of actualising them when we actualize cycle (1) — but that, along with government force, is subject enough for another post.So, in this limited sense, (2) and (3) indirectly, or consequentially, motivate us. They don’t fundamentally motivate us.We are motivated fundamentally by class consciousness — also a subject for another post.Ideals Enslave UsFor the moment I won’t pursue Marx’s scientific base–superstructure formulation of his deep insight that “social being determines consciousness”, except to point out the obvious — that it is the reverse of your bourgeois “idealistic” illusion that “consciousness determines social being”.However, I make two brief closing observations.A century of misguided attempts to bypass our Object and Declaration of Principles has demonstrated that socialism based on non-science is a miss far worse than a mile. Your universally self-evident ideals are a miss, in some ways a most insidious miss.Ideals are comforting. Ideals are reassuring. They are consoling — the more rarefied, decent and obvious they are, the more inspiring. But, as far as human activity is concerned, it is worth contemplating that whatever consoles a slave in his servitude does his master an incalculable service.Not only are ideals ineffectual, they are enslaving. They merely reveal what is wrong with our social condition.

[Hud955]

Hi AlexanderI’ve just seen this discussion for the first time.  This is a subject that interests me so I’ve responded to some of your points at some length.  That makes this post rather long, but heigh ho!  This level of fundamental disagreement is not going to be resolved in a few lines.Socialists do not, as you do, begin with a value framework.  Nor, as you seem to suppose, is there any logical or substantial reason why they should.  If we can be said to have a value at all it is our class interest, and even that is to stretch a point to meet your need to see things in these terms, since that social interest can be demonstrated objectively whether we acknowledge and value it or not.  Even if you see this as a value, it is not a moral value, and socialism is not a moral quest.    Your confusion arises because you are trying to squeeze a socialist (materialist) square peg into an abstract (idealist) round hole.  And that cannot be done.For instance no evaluative framework is required to define the structure of a future (post-capitalist) world.  In a sense, that structure defines itself, as it is the only discernible form of sustainable social structure that could result from the overthrow of capitalist society by the working class in pursuit of its interests.  By perceiving, through their daily experience, that private ownership of capital and property is the means by which their interest is thwarted in capitalist society, they develop the motivation to remove it, and in removing it, they create socialism, the propertyless society.  The rest follows.    Classes have supplanted one another throughout history and none of them have done it for moral reasons – because they believed they ought to.  It is even doubtful whether they had a clear idea of where their actions were ultimately taking them.  They simply followed their own immediate interests, and this led them to overthrow the existing ruling class whose interests were opposed to their own. This means that you cannot ignore working class interest as you propose.   If you try to do this then no real discussion about socialism is possible.  The interests of the working class are fundamental. Values like the ‘equality of decision-making power’ are merely consequential on this.  If it were possible that working-class interests could be met some other way within socialism than by the abolition of private property, then they would be, and some other set of values would be substituted for the ones we now broadly perceive.  As they can’t, equality of decision-making power is not a value for us but a practical means to realise our interests.As it is a practical activity, socialism does not require working people to have a philosophical view.  They only have to see that the world they live in, is a world in which their interests are not being served, that the underlying cause is the institution of private property, and then feel sufficiently motivated to do something about that.  The only reason socialists might need to be philosophical about this is because there are people out there who are trapped in an abstract and rationalistic way  of thinking divorced from real life, and for propaganda reasons their arguments need to be answeredIn fact, when a socialist movement does develop, individuals are likely to have a wide range of different values, some of them selfless some very selfish.  The underlying motivation will not be their individual values but their shared class interest.But because our case and our cause are non-evaluative, that doesn’t mean, as you suggest, that we are striving towards a valueless society.  That would be impossible.  All societies evolve an ethical or evaluative framework in which people live, and that evaluative framework broadly reflects the social relationships that are possible within that society.   Socialist society will inevitably evolve its own social values based on its particular and unique social relationships, and no doubt those values will change and develop over time as social institutions change and develop.  The task of socialists is to overthrow the property structure of capitalism and in so doing build the social relationships of socialism in the interests of the sole remaining class.  Your belief that we should start with values is fundamentally back to front.This is again seen in your assertion that values are subjective, which is assuredly not the case.  Values are individual but they are far from subjective.  They emerge from their social and ultimately from their material context.  The range of values possible in the UK for example, is wholly different from those in the tribal regions of India for example, or from those that existed among pre-soviet peasants. Values themselves take their general character from being adapted to the kinds of societies from which they emerge.So trying to analyse the socialist position in evaluative terms and squeezing an ethical principle out of it is a futile and unproductive activity.  The kind of sub-Kantian position which you proposed earlier for example does not fit with socialist materialism at all.   We do not place the greatest value on respecting the autonomy of other people’s bodies, thoughts and actions as you suggest.  As Adam has pointed out to you, we would deny the autonomy of the thoughts and actions of the capitalist class if they stood in the way of a socialist majority pursuing its interests through socialism.  I think you are trapped in an abstract and distinctly ‘capitalist’ way of thinking that does not enable you to see the materialist point of view.   Indeed, the reason why this kind of academic abstraction is so pervasive within capitalism is that it effectively diverts attention from the actual material conditions of our lives, and away from material practice which is conditioned by time and space.  No substantive conclusion can ever be derived ‘from a purely logical point of view’ since no amount of valid a priori or analytic reasoning can establish a synthetic truth.“At the moment, it eludes me as to why you seem to be denying to hold such basic values. But it is to your own detriment. It prevents you from seeing what is at the core of our social problems. No, it's not money, neither is it "greed" or political corruption or even capitalism itself. I can confidently say that because none of these things prevent you and every other advocate of socialism from going forth and founding a socialist city or state or even merely not participating in the current system by not using the means of exchange as devised by the state to facilitate this system. What prevents you from doing that is force. But it has nothing to do with the capitalists you criticize – apple and walmart can't force you to buy their products or work for them. But the government can (and it does).”The reason it eludes you, Alexander, is that you are trapped in an abstract way of thinking.  I think Brian’s post answers your substantive point.   No-one forces the working class to support capitalism.  It supports it of its own free will.  What prevents it from forming a socialist society (neither a city, nor a state) is a majority of socialists.  (And we are not particularly interested in mere non-participation in capitalism – because non-participation does not further working class interests.  Our aim is wholly different.)   Within capitalism, the state and the capitalist class are not exactly the same thing, but they are very close.  Historically, classes appeared before the state.  The state appears to have emerged to manage the tensions between antagonistic classes and to further the interests of the ruling class that had control of it.    The coercive power of the state is no small matter for socialists but it is not an underlying cause of working class problems.  The role of the state is to protect the interests of the capitalist class as a whole against those of the working class.  The state cannot be eliminated without eliminating capitalism, since capitalism cannot exist without it. As long as you try to superimpose an unrealistic and abstract way of reasoning on these material facts you will fail to understand the case for socialism and your critique will fly wide of the mark.

[Alexander Reiswich]

twc and Hud955, thank you both for the input. I especially appreciate the clearness of your post Hud955, but also the information and entertaining writing style from twc.Allow me to summarize your perspective in my own (plain) words and please let me know whether they're flawed or accurate:The main goal of socialism is to put the interests of the working class above those of every other class (mainly the capitalists; i.e. the people who live off the labour of the working class) and in fact remove all classes alltogether. That is necessary because you are convinced that by doing so, society as a whole will benefit tremendously (although it would be obviously terrible for those who benefit from the current system).Now, the reason that you, say, don't try to assassinate the people who empower and facilitate the current system is not because you "value" human life or something like that, but rather because it would not be the most effective approach to achieve your main goal.Instead, you believe the surest and most reasonable approach to be an educational one; that is, informing the working class that it is in their best interest to strive towards socialism (I assume mainly by voting for the socialist party).You hold that the perhaps greatest obstacle towards your main goal is the monetary/property system, which makes it possible for some (very rich) individuals to "squeeze" the labour value out of the working class and thus perpetuate their own lavish lifestyle at the expense of the majority of poor and middle class people.Therefore it is necessary to get rid of said system in order to ensure that the "wealth" produced by the working class is evenly distributed, rather than mostly wasted for the benefit of only a few. That would be a quick and simplistic summary of the way I understand your perspective, but I hope it gets the gist of it, otherwise I would gladly be corrected.I do see quite a few problems. For instance, the simple fact that the core of government mainly consists of the "capitalist class", as I'm sure you're well aware of. So it seems incredibly unlikely that they would allow for a true socialist party to ever be elected (just as a truly capitalist party will never be elected).Or the still fairly open question of how resources would be efficiently allocated in the absence of a monetary system.Or even if it is really possible to make a clear distinction between the working and the capitalist classes.But I think these questions are better suited for another thread. So, unless I got it completely wrong, I think we have arrived at a fair answer to my main question; namely that socialism strives to adapt social values to whatever serves the purpose of attaining and advancing a classless and moneyless society. Or to put it even more simply – individual socialists can have differing and even contradictory personal values, because the only thing that connects them is their class interest (which can also differ for every individual). This explains why it can be rather confusing to read socialist writing – for instance, when they criticize bourgeois ethics from a class interest viewpoint while using the same moral terminology (slavery, robbery, etc.) from a personal values perspective ("I don't want to be a slave.", etc.).

[Ed]

Alexander Reiswich wrote:

The main goal of socialism is to put the interests of the working class above those of every other class (mainly the capitalists; i.e. the people who live off the labour of the working class) and in fact remove all classes alltogether. That is necessary because you are convinced that by doing so, society as a whole will benefit tremendously (although it would be obviously terrible for those who benefit from the current system).

Why do you suppose it would be terrible for a former capitalist? There are in fact many benefits for the bourgeouisie and many examples of them betraying their class interest for socialism. Fredrick Engels being the most obvious, Peter Kropotkin although I suppose he was from an aristocratic background. Oscar Wilde was an interesting case and more typical of what I would expect from a member of his class. If you like idealism, individualism and moralism you may want to read The Soul of Man under Socialism. In it he makes the case for socialism not from the perspective of a class concious worker but explains how he sees it benefiting everyone. 

Alexander Reiswich wrote:

Or even if it is really possible to make a clear distinction between the working and the capitalist classes.

It's very easy. Forced to work for a wage = worker. Lives off others labour or rent or capital = not a worker.

Alexander Reiswich wrote:

So, unless I got it completely wrong, I think we have arrived at a fair answer to my main question; namely that socialism strives to adapt social values to whatever serves the purpose of attaining and advancing a classless and moneyless society.Or to put it even more simply – individual socialists can have differing and even contradictory personal values, because the only thing that connects them is their class interest (which can also differ for every individual).

Class interest does not differ between individuals of the same class.

Alexander Reiswich wrote:

This explains why it can be rather confusing to read socialist writing – for instance, when they criticize bourgeois ethics from a class interest viewpoint while using the same moral terminology (slavery, robbery, etc.) from a personal values perspective ("I don't want to be a slave.", etc.).

I can't agree that these are "moral terminology". If certain words evoke an emotional moral response from you then it is purely subjective. To me a term like slavery just means forced labour.Engels explains the difference between a slave and a worker quite adequately in the principles of communism

Quote:

The slave is sold once and for all; the proletarian must sell himself daily and hourly.The individual slave, property of one master, is assured an existence, however miserable it may be, because of the master’s interest. The individual proletarian, property as it were of the entire bourgeois class which buys his labor only when someone has need of it, has no secure existence. This existence is assured only to the class as a whole.The slave is outside competition; the proletarian is in it and experiences all its vagaries.The slave counts as a thing, not as a member of society. Thus, the slave can have a better existence than the proletarian, while the proletarian belongs to a higher stage of social development and, himself, stands on a higher social level than the slave.The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general.

[steve colborn]

No, Socialists want one thing! A society whereby the means and instruments for producing what we need, as human beings, to live, is owned and controlled by us all, in the interests of us all. Moreover the raw materials wherefrom this production comes, is similarly owned, by us all.In other words, the world and it's wealth! is the common heritage and, belongs to, and should be used for, everyone that lives on this planet.That is, in essence, the gist of our argument.There are no arguments that can be used to claim, "prior" ownership. Can Capitalists prove their ownership by saying their antecedents existed earlier than other "humans"? no!When the raw materials that is, the fount of all Capitalist production was laid down, mankind had not even crawled from the primeordeal slime. What can we infer from this? We can infer, that the rights and ownership of the same, today, is done on the basis of, "might is right"!Capitalists cannot claim that their anticedents were here, originally, before all others. So what we know, is that they claim these "rights of ownership", merely because of their control of the forces of coercion that exist at present. They use these forces to, in someway, validate their possession and ownership, of the same!It is not historically, nor morally correct. It is a case of, our might gives us these "rights". They "own" now and control the means of communication, to self justify and historically justify, this unjustifiable act of "minority class" possession.The rest of us are merely, (or they would have us believe) merely adjuncts to this. We are not. The Socialist Parties case, proves conclusively, that this is incorrect, in any way they, the elite, try to claim it is. Steve.

[Hud955]

"I do see quite a few problems. For instance, the simple fact that the core of government mainly consists of the "capitalist class", as I'm sure you're well aware of. So it seems incredibly unlikely that they would allow for a true socialist party to ever be elected (just as a truly capitalist party will never be elected)".It is not just unlikely but inconceivable that a capitalist class would 'agree' to a working class dispossessing them of their wealth, and removing the basis on which their social role is built – which is why the overturning of capitalism can only be done by a mass working class movement.  As the working class comprise the vast majority of capitalist society and are responsible for its entire wealth production, and as  the rule of the capitalist class is currently maintained only by working class acceptance in the economic sphere of the wage labour-capital relationship,  in the political sphere of capitalist ideology, and materially by their employment in the military and the police, there is nothing a minority capitalist class could do to prevent a mass working class movement overturning the system.  "Or the still fairly open question of how resources would be efficiently allocated in the absence of a monetary system."The' efficient' 'allocation' of resources is a problem only for a propertied (class) society.  The aim of a classless society we can suppose is the collective identification and satisfaction of social need.  The management of resources to this end can be achieved as it is largely achieved under capitalism, not by monetary, but by material calculation  (Von Mises notwithstanding).  Money is a very poor indicator of many things a socialist society might come to value and therefore neechoose to calculate, like social need, like a sustainable use of raw materials, like environmental stability,like the needs of family/social life, like congenial work programmes, or democratic involvement in productive decision-making – to name but a few."Or even if it is really possible to make a clear distinction between the working and the capitalist classes."The distinction is very clear but not abosolute.  As with any social or large-scale system, categories shade into one another but for the vast majority of people the matter could not be more straightforward.  It hinges on people's relationship to the means of production.  Those who own sufficient of the means of production not to have to sell their labour to earn a living are members of the capitalist class.  Those that do not own sufficient of the means of production and have to sell their labour to survive, are members of the working class. "So, unless I got it completely wrong, I think we have arrived at a fair answer to my main question; namely that socialism strives to adapt social values to whatever serves the purpose of attaining and advancing a classless and moneyless society. Or to put it even more simply – individual socialists can have differing and even contradictory personal values, because the only thing that connects them is their class interest (which can also differ for every individual)".Yes, you got it completely wrong, Alexander.  And as long as you continue to try to impose an idealist conceptual framework upon a materialist socialist argument you will go on getting it wrong.  Socialism is not about adapting values. It is not about values at all.   It is about the necessary working class response to the material pressures within capitalism.  And no, as members of the working class, our class position and therefore our class interest is objective and does not differ for every individual.  "This explains why it can be rather confusing to read socialist writing – for instance, when they criticize bourgeois ethics from a class interest viewpoint while using the same moral terminology (slavery, robbery, etc.) from a personal values perspective ("I don't want to be a slave.", etc.)."There is a trend in academic philosophy, particularly fashionable about ten years ago, but still around today which claims that words like 'slavery' contain moral judgements. Many now argue against this, as I would – for several reasons.  If you want to go into them we can, but these are drily technical arguments and there is a much more important and material point to make: yes, we do use clearly moral termiology, but we use it for a very particular purpose and in a circumscribed manner.  We use it to critique capitalism, and in so doing turn capitalist values back against they system that has given rise to them.  It is a demonstration of the hypocritical and self-contradictory nature of capitalist ideology.  We do not use moral terminology to define or describe socialism as a movement, an aim or a future society.    

[Alexander Reiswich]

Hi Ed,firstly, I agree that it is conceivable for the capitalists to be ultimately better off in a socialist system (if it works as intended). But I think that realistically, and at least in the short term, it is rather clear that the wealthy capitalists would have to adapt a much less grandiose lifestyle. Isn't that actually one of the basic goals of socialism? To take away the power and wealth from the fat cat capitalists? At least that's the impression I get. As for your distinction between workers and capitalists – it does seem hopelessly simplistic in my eyes.First of all, very few workers in first world countries are "forced" to work by any common definition of the word "force". You are forced to pay your taxes, for instance, because if you don't, you will be put in prison.But you can quit and change your job fairly easily, apart from some contractual restrictions perhaps.So I suppose that you mean an economic, environmental kind of "force", which may apply to some people. However, the better and more precise word would clearly be "pressure" then.I would actually agree that there are such pressures in our society, but they also often apply to the people whom you would consider capitalists. It's not like if you become a CEO, you suddenly don't have to work and can just happily live off the labour of the poeple working under you. Also, how is renting property not working for a wage? Whether it's housing or equipment – a lot of money, time and effort goes into creating or acquiring a property. Moreover, a lot of risk is involved. If no one is interested in renting it, you're screwed.I could go on and on, but my point is that the distinction is not clear at all. Not only is there a "gradient", but a downright mixture of those defining attributes in peoples lives. A simple example is – what class does someone like a freelancer belong to? "Class interest does not differ between individuals of the same class."Same problem as above – of course people have different interests. I literally can't make any sense of that sentence. As for the term slavery as often used by socialists – as you say, there is a very clear definition for it: forced labour.Now, as I mentioned before, practically no one in a first world country is "forced" to work. It would be a worthwhile discussion to talk about pressures, but that renders the whole idea of "wage slavery" moot.On a more personal note, I find it rather offensive to people who are <i>actually</i> forced to work to be compared to the vast majority of normal workers who can change their jobs or quit work alltogether.To draw an analogy – to label our working system as slavery is about as sensible as calling the abortion of a three days old embryo "murder". It's a stretch of biblical proportions.A more fair and precise way to call it would be perhaps "exploitation", among others. That leaves me wondering why socialists would even want to use the word "slavery" in this context at all. And I can't help but think that it's for marketing purposes. "Slavery" sounds just way more emotional and alarming than everything else.  Steve, I'm sorry to say but every socialist I talk to has a different emphasis on what socialists want.It's not new to someone who sees people as individuals rather than classes, though. As for your denial of ownership – I don't really want to defend property rights here, but I can't help but point out the fallacies in your argument. First of all, ownership is derived from use and the labour that went into acquiring it.For example, if I see a banana growing on a tree, I can't claim to "own" it just like that. But if I climb the tree and pick up the banana, everyone intuitively understands that it wouldn't be appropriate for you to just take away the banana from me like I did from the tree. There are many reasons as to why that is so, but suffice to say that it would be, in fact, a form of slavery, if you could just take something from me that I put time, effort and energy into acquiring. Now, the planet is not a sentient being, so it doesn't matter if I take something from it. Sure, it's possible to be "greedy" and take more than can naturally be replenished. But that's a problem for humans – again, the planet doesn't care. We're the ones who suffer, so it's in our rational interest to be careful with natural resources. Now, the forces of coercion that you talk about would be "governments", let's be clear about it.It is only through state force that the "minority class" possession you talk about is possible. Governments are tools that can be used to make people do pretty much anything – from war and genocide to indoctrination and slavery, as well as sometimes a bit of public service. Only states are capable of deciding what the public should or should not do and have the ability to enforce those edicts.But the important thing to understand is that all governments consist of mere humans, no better than you or I. This means that they can be manipulated. The "corruption" that everyone talks about is a completely predictable and logical outcome of any and every type of government. To not see that is to ignore everything we understand of human behavior.My point is – how can someone seriously believe that organizations and corporations won't try to steer the government in favour of their own interests? To use the power of the state or not use it can mean the success or failure of a company. In other words, there is a cause to your observation of those capitalists who claim ownership to this and that.It's the power of the state that pressures them into this direction by offering them an immoral deal that they can't refuse for all intents and purposes.In the absence of the force of the state, most of what you (and I) criticize about our situation would not be even possible. Not to recognize this will doom your party to repeat historys tragedies over and over again. If for instance the socialist party suddenly got into power (which, to be honest, is beyond wishful thinking) in the UK or some other similar nation, it would naturally turn out like everywhere else – it would not be a "true" socialist party. How could it possibly resist all external influences and stay completely honest to it's stated goals? Such a thing never happened in history and never will. The socialist party will be "streamlined" and forced to adapt more moderate positions. Gradually, it will become just like the old parties and some new brand of socialism will grow up to claim that it's all the capitalists fault.  @Hud955: "[…] there is nothing a minority capitalist class could do to prevent a mass working class movement overturning the system."As similar things have happened historically, I can imagine that happening, however, do you really think that is a realistic possibility? I won't go into the question of resource allocation as this post is long enough as it is. As for the distinction between working class and capitalists, yours is a bit more usable than the one offered previously, although I still think it ignores many of the concerns I mentioned above (mainly, that aquiring and owning a means of production IS work and sometimes indistinguishable from any other form of labor – it's probably just the scale of it that you use to differentiate between them). As for the "objectivity" of your class interest – maybe I didn't put it clearly enough, but you affirmed what I stated by negating it.I AGREED with you that socialism has an objective position and that the values, if necessary, follow from that, but added that the individuals can have any kind of values-system (or lack thereof) that they like.However, if you really think that because socialism may have an objective position, therefore every individual socialist has an objective position, then – no offense – but that's delusional. Every socialist I talk to has a different perspective, different priorities, different approaches, different definitions and even different goals. People are individuals, not "classes".There may well be objectively an ideal class position that can be logically derived, but in practice, no single socialist will share it completely due to their varying environments and live experiences (unless you maybe indoctrinate them from early childhood). And if you think that people as individuals don't have values once they adapt socialism you are equally wrong (but you already previously said that a socialist society would not be value-free, etc. so I'm not even sure why you're negating that here). As for the value-laden terminology; you need to work on your jiu-jitsu :)Sorry to say, but using words that are inaccurate and purely appeal to moral intuition does not really suggest any hypocricy in capitalist ideology. If anything, it sounds like a contradiction in socialist ideology.However, even the rest I can't fully accept. I've heard plenty of socialists talk about reason, truth, love, etc. These terms, too, contain value judgements, without which they would become pretty much meaningless. And they can only be used by assuming that people value them.

[ALB]

Alexander Reiswich wrote:

As for your denial of ownership – I don't really want to defend property rights here, but I can't help but point out the fallacies in your argument.First of all, ownership is derived from use and the labour that went into acquiring it.

You do realise don't you that this argument can be, and frequently has been, used as an argument for socialism, i.e. the social rather than individual ownership of the means of production and their products on production?Production today is almost entirely social involving ultimately the co-operative labour of workers all over the world. Just think of the the everyday things you use and the food you eat. The only individual act of production today is the example you give of someone picking fruit from a (wild) tree. Hardly typical of production generally. As production is social then, on your principle that property rights derive from labour, so ought the products to be. It is not a line of argument we use, but that's where it leads.This was always the contradiction in the labour theory of individual property — it could be used to justify the exact opposite of what its proponents intended.  Which is why it was abandoned and replaced by the argument that private property in the means of production is justified because that's what the law permits. Which of course is a circular argument.

[Anonymous]

AlexanderClearly you haven't understood what we mean by socialism.  It's not a plan or program to reform capitalism; to make it 'better', but to change completely the present social relationships by establishing the common ownership and control of the means and instruments of producing wealth.  In socialism there would no longer be capitalists, fat cat or otherwise.  Neither would there be workers; those compelled to sell their mental and physical energies in order to live.All those who are excluded from the ownership and control of the means of wealth production and distribution depend for their existence on wages and salaries or incomes derived from them. In Britain this is over 90% of the population, the remainder being mostly the capitalist class – those who live on unearned income derived from their ownership of land and invested capital. As shorthand, socialists sometimes refer to the working class as wage slaves or wage and salary earners. This, however, is a way of bringing out the importance of wage labour for capitalism, and is not a value judgement by socialists on the worth or importance of the workers not employed. The life-blood of this system is the pumping of surplus value out of wage labour. But in fact employees constitute only about half the total number of the working class. Of necessity, there are many roles within the working class that are needed to facilitate the reproduction cycle of labour power, such as schoolchildren, housewives, pensioners and so on. The whole working class is involved in creating, maintaining and reproducing labour power. For the benefit of the capitalist classGround rent, interest and profit form the surplus value produced by wage labour.  Workers are constrained to selling their labour power for a wage or a salary, but during their time in employment they can produce a value greater than their wages and salaries. Because the capitalist class owns the means of life and their products, they appropriate this unpaid surplus when the commodities are sold on the market. The rate of exploitation (rate of surplus value) is the ratio of surplus labour (surplus value) to necessary labour (variable capital), (s/v).Exploitation is, in fact, a morally neutral term, as used by socialists, to denote the historically specific form of the extraction of surplus labour. Feudalism was based on the appropriation of surplus labour as feudal tribute (in the form of money, produce or labour services) from the peasantry. Capitalist enterprises buy workers’ labour power for a wage or a salary which is more or less equal to its value but extract labour greater than the equivalent of that wage or salary. This surplus labour takes the form of surplus value and is the source of profit. But it is important to remember that, because surplus value is socially produced, an employee is not just exploited by their particular employer. Exploitation is a class relationship only: the capitalist class exploit the working class.Production under socialism would be directly and solely for use. With the natural and technical resources of the world held in common and controlled democratically, the sole object of production would be to meet human needs. This would entail an end to buying, selling and money. Instead, we would take freely what we had communally produced. The old slogan of "from each according to ability, to each according to needs" would apply.In socialism, everybody would have free access to the goods and services designed to directly meet their needs and there need be no system of payment for the work that each individual contributes to producing them. All work would be on a voluntary basis. Producing for needs means that people would engage in work that has a direct usefulness. The satisfaction that this would provide, along with the increased opportunity to shape working patterns and conditions, would bring about new attitudes to work.

[Young Master Smeet]

Quote:

For example, if I see a banana growing on a tree, I can't claim to "own" it just like that. But if I climb the tree and pick up the banana, everyone intuitively understands that it wouldn't be appropriate for you to just take away the banana from me like I did from the tree.

Actually, ISTR when we had a talk addressed by an anthropologist, Camilla Power, she told us of the Tanzanian tribes people who had exactly the opposite view.  If one of their number has a honeycomb, someone would just wander up to them, and demand it be handed over, and they just would.  The expectation is that food is shared out. [Edited wrong country]

[Author]

Posts