Socialist Utopia/What and How?

[JoanOfArc]

mcolome1 wrote:

Vin wrote:

JoanOfArc wrote:

 please if you will Vin, can you give me an example of state owned profit making enterprise competing against big business.thanks if you can, very much appreciated mate. cheers.

A state owned profit making enterprise is big business.I was a miner when the mines were owned by the state. If we went on strike for safer working conditions, the state starved us back to work and its uniformed bully boys beat us with trungeons.State owned enterprises are owned collectively by the ruling class and run in its interests"The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie."Marx

Someone wrote that,  within state capitalism, the state becomes the largest corporation of the whole society, it control all the means of productions,  and all the wage slaves, the banking system, the education, the army, the production, the extraction of surplus value, its own financing,  etc, etc.  it is the perfect single  bourgeois class

but if it was a crap system people wouldnt vote for it with their money. they would boycott it instead maybe. you'd pay fair wages oh and a host of other ethical practices.  yeh go on call me an idealist and tell me it will never happen.  haha. maybe i should shut up. but for some reason i'm hell bent on this idea and keen to talk and discuss with others. if my opinion/view is influenced by others that i change it, then fine, it will mean hopefully that i've progressed and evolved in my thinking.  but i know of no better ideas so far. cheers.

[JoanOfArc]

mcolome1 wrote:

JoanOfArc wrote:

mcolome1 wrote:

JoanOfArc wrote:

Friedrich Engels, in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, argued that state ownership does not do away with capitalism by itself, but rather would be the final stage of capitalism, consisting of ownership and management of large-scale production and communication by the bourgeois state. He argued that the tools for ending capitalism are found in state capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

  well i think it's clear from this paragraph that no he did not think that state capitalism on its own would end capitalism.  he did though, think it would provide the tools.Norway, Singapore and China have a strand of state capitalism and it seems pretty successful.but no it's not the be all and end all, for sure. it's more a means to an end.[/quoteI do not think you can provide any evidence that Engels said that, you are a Wikipedian. There is not such thing mentioned in Engels book either, the Communist Manifesto might contain certain state capitalist measures, and despite that,   Marx and Engels did not support state capitalism eitherState capitalism has failed in all the countries where it has been tried and applied, one of the biggest example is the soviet union. Capitalism can. not contain itself within its own border, it must expand itself. State capitalism is one of the most inefficient variety of capitalismState capitalism has been beneficial in China, or others countries for the ruling elites of those countries, but it has not been  beneficial for the working class, even more, state capitalism in certain historical period was a world phenomenon and it failed completely. Capitalism is a failure in all its forms and varieties ]

 and i repeat i am not talking over taking control of the capitalist owned companies. this is what happened in the Soviet Union. i am not suggesting we do what they did.i fail to see how my idea would benefit the elite ruling classes. can you show my how it would please? cheers.

[Anonymous]

JoanOfArc said:

Quote:

i think actually that corbynomics isn't going to go away until it's tried. i feel this is the natural next step of the left. if it works well then who knows what the next move will be.

I don’t know enough about economics to understand if the cut backs in state funding can be reversed.  I guess the government will just have to borrow a lot of money.  Or raise taxes – which the present incumbents won’t do.The thing is, it really was a little better for, say, the disabled before all the cuts and the re-jigging of the benefit system of the last years started to come into effect.  To many, it has meant the difference between having some kind of life, and having none.  To some it has meant the difference between being able to eat and going without.  To some, it’s all been too much, and they have committed suicide.Let’s suppose that Corbyn gets in and does this (state borrowing, taxing the rich), ameliorating somewhat the disastrous effects of the cuts on the poor and vulnerable.  My Labour voting friends, from the position of witnessing these privations first hand, might think this is reason enough to vote Labour.I do know, of course, that Labour is just another party supporting capitalsim, and in the final instance will have to do its bidding – but have you got any good arguments I could bring to the table that would change my friends’ minds – bearing in mind what I have said above?

[robbo203]

JoanOfArc wrote:

 in russia the capitalst owned corps were taken under government control. i do not agree with taking over one culture with another. it has to be done gradually and purely at the will of the people, many people. not just a few so called socialist dictators.  as Engels pointed out that state capitalism would provide tools for socialism. it would make the state richer that's for sure. and that then can be used to bring about socialism. i see different models of ownership being piloted and time for experimentation. but you need financial resources within this capitalist system to do this.]

 JoanI would argue that state ownership is simply a variant of private property,  It is certainly not common property and therefore by default, has to be some form of private or sectional property – namely, the collectivised property of a ruling class –  who own the means of production in de facto terms by virtue of their ultimate control over those means via their stranglehold on the state apparatus itself. If you ultimately control something you own it and vice versa Common ownership of the means of production is logically incompatible with a system of economic exchange and this is certainly what exists under a system of state capitalism . In the Soviet Union, goods and services were bought and sold, there were employers and employees and thus the commodification of labour power itself ,  other means of production (constant capital) are also subject to market exchange and legally binding contracts.  The Soviet union was a fully functioning capitalist system in every sense that mattered Might I recommend to you this brilliant work by Paresh Chattopadhyay  which you can download and readhttps://libcom.org/library/paresh-chattopadhyay-marxian-concept-capital-soviet-experience I cannot see any advantage whatsover for preferring state capitalism to any other form of capitalism. Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto made a serious blunder, in my view, in advocating the centralisation of the means of production in the hands of state  – though they latter backtracked on thiis.  They reasoned that this would hasten the development of the forces of production and hence the arrival of socialism.  They also reasoned that it would facilitate the changeover to socialism though unlike Lenin never made the mistake of equating socialism with state ownership. Large scale socialised production, they argued, makes it easier for the revolutinary movement to take over the means of  production.  Stalin explained away the continuance  of commodity production in the Soivet Union mainly because of the agricultural sector which was comprised of numerous small to medium sized production units. I think the whole argument is bogus.  State capitalism does not bring us one step closer to socialism at all.  On the contrary I would say state capitalism in its full blooded sense belngs to an era of early capitalism. It is the sign of an immature capitalism based on extensive rather than intensive growth via technological innovation. And it has been rendered obsolete by the globalisation of capitalism itself There is no warrant for advocating any kind of capitalism today as a supposed transitional step towards socialism since the forces of production are already more than adequately developed to underwrite and sustain a genuinely socialist society – and have been for at least a century now

[JoanOfArc]

robbo203 wrote:

JoanOfArc wrote:

 in russia the capitalst owned corps were taken under government control. i do not agree with taking over one culture with another. it has to be done gradually and purely at the will of the people, many people. not just a few so called socialist dictators.  as Engels pointed out that state capitalism would provide tools for socialism. it would make the state richer that's for sure. and that then can be used to bring about socialism. i see different models of ownership being piloted and time for experimentation. but you need financial resources within this capitalist system to do this.]

 JoanI would argue that state ownership is simply a variant of private property,  It is certainly not common property and therefore by default, has to be some form of private or sectional property – namely, the collectivised property of a ruling class –  who own the means of production in de facto terms by vyrtue of their ultimate control over those means via their strangelhold on the state apparatus. If you ultimately control something you own it and vice versa Common ownership of the means of production is logically incompatible with a system of economic exchange and this is certainly what exists under a system of state capitalism . In the Soviet Union, goods and services were bought and sold, there were employers and employees and thus the commodification of labour power itself ,  other means of production (constant capital) are also subject to market exchange and legally binding contracts.  The Soviet union was a fully functioning capitalist system in every sense that mattered Might I recommend to you this brilliant work by Paresh Chattopadhyay  which you can download and readhttps://libcom.org/library/paresh-chattopadhyay-marxian-concept-capital-soviet-experience I cannot see any advantage whatsover for preferring state capitalism to any other form of capitalism. Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto made a serious blunder, in my view, in advocating the centralisation of the means of production in the hands of state  – though they latter backtracked on thiis.  They reasoned that this would hasten the development of the forces of production and hence the arrival of socialism.  They also reasoned that it would facilitate the changeover to socialism though unlike Lenin never made the mistake of equating socialism with state ownership. Large scale socialised production, they argued, makes it easier for the revolutinary movement to take over the means of  production.  Stalin explained away the continuance  of commodity production in the Soivet Union mainly because of the agricultural sector which was comprised of numeorous small to medium sized production units. I think the whole argument is bogus.  State capitalism does not bring us one step closer to socialism at all.  On the contrary I would say state capitalism in its full blooded sense belngs to an era of early capitalism. It is the sign of an immature capitalism based on extensive rather than intensive growth via technological innovation. And it has been rednered obsolete by the globalisation of capitalism itself There is no warrant for advocating any kind of capitalism today as a supposed transitional step towards socialism since the forces of production are already more than adequately developed to underwrite and sustain a genuinely socialist society – and have been for at leat a century now

phew! how brilliant to see people making the effort to put their ideas forward to lil ol me hehei'm just making a cuppa and will get back to this later on.many thanks.

[Dave B]

I think these kind of ideas have been around before particularly in the US   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruskin_Colony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Wayland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Human_Drift https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_C._Gillette

[Anonymous]

Dave B wrote:

I think these kind of ideas have been around before particularly in the US   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruskin_Colony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Wayland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Human_Drift https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_C._Gillette

The heading of the post is Socialist Utopia, but the person that posted the message is not tallking about the history of Utopia, or what Utopia is, or was. She is trying to show that capitalism is a favorable system for mankind, and want others human being to be capitalist lovers. It is more bullshitting than argumentations

[moderator1]

mcolome1 wrote:

Dave B wrote:

I think these kind of ideas have been around before particularly in the US   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruskin_Colony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Wayland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Human_Drift https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_C._Gillette

The heading of the post is Socialist Utopia, but the person that posted the message is not tallking about the history of Utopia, or what Utopia is, or was. She is trying to show that capitalism is a favorable system for mankind, and want others human being to be capitalist lovers. It is more bullshitting than argumentations

That is the heading.  But the sub-heading is:What does your socialist utopia look like?And how do we get there in your opinion?'Let the state compete with big business, let the people vote with the money in their pockets. Spend your money on state produced goods and/or services and see the profits be churned back into the peoples pockets via free further education, improve'.He's claiming a form of state capitalism – not the USSR kind – is required in his opinion to gain a socialist utopia.  Nothing wrong in that.

[JoanOfArc]

thanks for this thoughtful reply. i do apprecaite the discussion.may i ask how you perceive the way to socialism if not initially through state capitalism? thank you

[JoanOfArc]

To mcolome1 i'm sorry if i'm not as well read as you in the history of socialist utopiabut i must hasten to add that i don't believe any one person or indeed any one party can say what utopia looks likeas my belief is that each and every one individual needs to have input into what utopia isfor each is a piece of a jigsaw. you do not get the whole picture nor insight to of or to this world without taking every single person into consideration.so your utopia may look completely different to mine. much like gardens. we all have different tastes. so neither of us are right nor  wrong.i am not trying to show anything. i am merely stating where i am at the moment in thought. and maybe my outlook will change in time, of which i'll be happy about as presumably i would have progressed.for now though i am working on a very simplified theory.lastly i am most certainly not advocating capitalism as favourable to socialism. i am merely enquiring as to whether a capitalist state in competition with private capitalsm would be a means to socialsm rather than the end in itself.i'm sorry you think i am bullshitting, we will have to agree to disagree on that point.

[Anonymous]

JoanOfArc wrote:

To mcolome1 i'm sorry if i'm not as well read as you in the history of socialist utopiabut i must hasten to add that i don't believe any one person or indeed any one party can say what utopia looks likeas my belief is that each and every one individual needs to have input into what utopia isfor each is a piece of a jigsaw. you do not get the whole picture nor insight to of or to this world without taking every single person into consideration.so your utopia may look completely different to mine. much like gardens. we all have different tastes. so neither of us are right nor  wrong.i am not trying to show anything. i am merely stating where i am at the moment in thought. and maybe my outlook will change in time, of which i'll be happy about as presumably i would have progressed.for now though i am working on a very simplified theory.lastly i am most certainly not advocating capitalism as favourable to socialism. i am merely enquiring as to whether a capitalist state in competition with private capitalsm would be a means to socialsm rather than the end in itself.i'm sorry you think i am bullshitting, we will have to agree to disagree on that point.

 First, you must define what utopia is. My understanding is that Utopia is a  society that does not exist at present time, but it can exist in the future, therefore, the society that you support is not an utopia. It has already been realized, and it has failed, and it is overdue

[robbo203]

Utopia.  The word itself was coined  by Thomas More in 1516.   Deriving from the Greek word for "no place" (which, spelt slightly differently, means "good place"), it stands for an imaginary, idealised and sought after society.  It conveys also the idea of something that is essentially unachievable.  To be called a "utopian" is to be dismissed as an impractical dreamer.  Utopians, however, may take some comfort from the fact that history, amongst other things, has been a record of what was once thought to be unachievable, even unimaginable, being realised.  As Oscar Wilde put it in  The Soul of Man under Socialism, "A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not even worth glancing at.  Progress is the realisation of Utopias"  Utopian thought has had a long and illustrious past – from the musings of the legendary King Gilgamesh of Ancient Sumeria in 2000 BC to the hi-tech eco-friendly communes of today.  What do all these different utopias have in common?  According to Ian Tod and Michael Wheeler: The answer is very little in detail, except perhaps for an almost universal dislike  of lawyers, and there are even exceptions to that generalisation.  However, utopias are about how people should live, about human nature, and the meaning and purpose of life.  And thus they deal with perennial problems: happiness, good and evil, authority, the state, religion, knowledge, work, sex, equality, liberty.  Some utopias assume that people are inherently bad and that they need a state to prevent society breaking down in chaos.  Others maintain that people are inherently good and it is only institutions like  a state that prevent them living in peace and cooperation.  Some see the solutions of social problems in the pursuit of material prosperity, whereas others see it in austerity and simplicity.  Some advocate private property but by far the majority advocate some form of communism, with equal access to the bounty of nature and equal status between people (I Tod and M Wheeler Utopia, Orbis Publishing, London, 1978, p.7)  It is with this last kind of utopia that, I suggest, socialists are primarily concerned with.

[Anonymous]

This is our definition of Utopia  http://www.worldsocialism.org/spanish/utop%C3%AD-socialista-¿proyecto-realizable-o-sueño-inaccesible       

[Author]

Posts