What is Socialism?

[moderator1]

LBird wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

AFAIK robbo is a non-member which leaves about 2% of total SPGB membership at most who have disagreed with you on this forum.

But 100% of active, posting, members, jdw!I notice that you haven't denied the 'materialist faith' in the god 'matter'!It might only take one poster to restore the democratic credentials of the SPGB, which have been so roughly dismissed by the, err… ahem… '2%'.

2nd warning: 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).

[alanjjohnstone]

In a recent exchange, LBird, on what is socialism and what is imperialism with Sepehr, i fully expected you to demand that he declare his ideology and then confront him from your extensive knowledge of Marx and Engels.But it seemed as if you were more interested in scoring debating points with Dave B rather than challenge someone who is a much a greater threat to workers democracy and workers control. Again on this thread when someone queries what is meant by socialism he does not get a direct answer from yourself but instead is offered a critique of the other posters, rather than explain your view on the question he asked.  Our task is to make socialists….hand on heart, can you say that is your highest priority? Or has debating half-dozen on the forum become your pet hobby and favourite pastime. 

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

…democracy is … not about establishing Truth…

Once more, robbo can't be any clearer.He holds to an ideology that claims that 'Truth' is not established by democracy.It doesn't take much thinking about his ideological claim, that 'democracy is not about establishing the Truth' (which is also a claim that bourgeois ideology makes), to start to wonder, if not the democratic proletariat, then just who does 'establish the Truth'?From logic alone, we Democratic Communists must assume that robbo has in mind an 'elite' who are to 'establish the Truth'.Those who know the events of the 20th century, and are aware of regimes that claimed to be 'socialist', but also refused to allow workers to actively participate in the production of truth, also refused to allow workers to participate in politics, or in the distribution of social production… in fact, those regimes, which also claimed that 'Truth is not established by democracy', weren't 'socialist' at all.Only the class conscious proletariat, building towards a socialism in which they will themselves determine production, can be the source of any claims for 'truths'.Whilst workers look to any persons or organisations which clearly deny the active role of the revolutionary proletariat in all areas of social production, then those workers will be lied to and fooled. The result will be 'expert rule', by an 'elite' which claims to have a 'special consciousness', a consciousness which is denied to the 'thick working class'.This is the fruit of 'materialism'. Materialism claims that the 'material' ('matter' or 'physical') speaks alone to a 'special elite' (but doesn't speak to workers, who are too poorly educated, or even have no interest, to participate), and so, from the very outset, denies the possibility of democracy in the means of production. For materialists, 'matter' is the 'active side', and so workers cannot vote upon what 'matter' actually 'is'. The materialists argue that 'matter just is', and they claim that they (and they alone) 'know' matter, because they have a non-political method which allows elite minorities to access 'matter', outside of considerations of socio-historical consciousness, or the wishes or purposes of the proletariat.They claim physics is non-political. This is a bourgeois claim, and its emergence can be located in history.This claim leads to the ideological belief that 'Truth' is outside of any considerations of social consciousness, and so outside issues of democracy.Beware, any workers reading, an elite plans openly to deny democracy in the means of production: this elite actually says so, and you should take their open claims seriously.

 Youre just waffling LBird and not making much sense at all.  I note that ,having lied through your teeth in your earlier post about me (and presumably others here too) wanting to "deny democracy in the means of production", you are still persisting with  this line of argument although youve wisely chosen not to name names in this latest attempt of yours to throw mud around in the hope that it wil stick on someone I have made clear what my position is. I see absolutely no point in submitting scientifc theories to a democratic vote.  You have not  once explained why this is necessary and what is supposed to happen once a scientific truth has been democratically voted on.  Is dissenting opinion going to be suppressed after the vote? No? Well then what was the vote supposed to be abou?.  What was its  purpose?  Just to demonstrate that a majority thinks a particular scientific theory was "true"  – or alternatively not "true".  Big deal, then what?  .  In what way  is this democratic decision going to be meaningfully implemented or applied and to what end?.  You dont explain.  You never explain.  You cant explain and that is because, quite clearly, you dont really understand democracy., do you LBird ?  You  don't really understand what it is for. Weve been over this several times but still you dont get it  You can't seem to see that there is a world of difference between calling for "democratic control over the means of production" and calling for a "democratic vote to determine the truth of a scientifc theory,"  The former is  both practical .and necessary in a socialist society; the latter is just plain nuts and betrays a kind of religious cum dogmatic attitude towards "Scientific Truth" that you shoud want to formalise it in this way. And we wont even go into the logistics of organising tens of thousands of  worldwide plebsicites for every scientific theory going becuase I know you are too embarrassed to even attempt an answer – arnet you LBird? – so I will spare you any further embarrassment.Do I think there will be an elite community of astrophysicists in socialism who know a lot more about astrophysics than the average guy in th street.  Absolutely!  Dont you LBird? Answer this – how many years of study do you reckon it takes to become an accomplished astrophysist?  I dont know but lets hazard a guess and say 10 years.  So according to you in order to avoid there being an elite of astrophysicists everyone will need to commit at least ten years of their life to the  intensiive study of astrophysics,  That way we can all be accompished astrophysists, familiar with all the theories circulating in the field of astrophysics and hence able to vote knowledgeably on whether these theories are true or false. Yes?But  hold on a moment – what about the molecular biologists or the oncologists or the people into plate tectonics or the cognitive sceintists and so on and so on.  There are probably thousands upon thousands of different specialisms.  So what are you gonna suggest, LBird?  That we devote 10 years of our lives to each of these as  well? Well, Im sorry to disappoint you but unfortunately we  have only a limited lifespan and we can't do everything So LBird there are only two choices left 1) keep our already incredibly complex social division of labour intact and concede therefore that you are always goig to have experts – what you call the "elite" – in what ever field you care to mention2) abolish this social division so that we all become "jack of all trades" and masters of none and witness the rapid decline of science and technology, followed in short order by the collapse of society's infrastucture and productive capacity Is this an "ideological " statement on my part.  Sure it is! I dont know what you are – presumably some kindi of primitivist by the sound of it –  but I am democratic communist and I am concerned that a socialist or communist society should be able to materially support its population, not collapse into barbarism and a vicious struggle over a  rapidly diminishing pool of resources,  Encouraging expertise is part of what is needed to sustain a level of output that would enable such a society to floursih. That does not mean as you stupidly claim,  that the result will be 'expert rule', by an 'elite' which claims to have a 'special consciousness', a consciousness which is denied to the 'thick working class'. You forget  firstly that there will be no one elite but multiple "elites" in each of their specialised fields. The astrophysicist is not part of the elite of molecular biologists in the field of molecular biology.  Secondly there will be no impediment whatsoever placed on anyone to pursue whatever field interests him or her and to develop expertise in that field. Socialism will be a completely open society in that respect.  That does not mean there will be no examinations and qualifications en route to acquiring expertise. If you imagine just anyine is going to be able to perform the task of a brain surgeon without being qualified to do so then you are seriously deluded. And thirdly what leverage could scientific experts exert over the population at large in a society in which the principles of free access and volunteer labour apply?.  None at all.  And the oorrolary of that is prceisely "democratic control over the means of production". The democratic determination of Scientifc Truth , on the other hand. is an irrelevance and utter baloney

[moderator1]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

…democracy is … not about establishing Truth…

Once more, robbo can't be any clearer.He holds to an ideology that claims that 'Truth' is not established by democracy.It doesn't take much thinking about his ideological claim, that 'democracy is not about establishing the Truth' (which is also a claim that bourgeois ideology makes), to start to wonder, if not the democratic proletariat, then just who does 'establish the Truth'?From logic alone, we Democratic Communists must assume that robbo has in mind an 'elite' who are to 'establish the Truth'.Those who know the events of the 20th century, and are aware of regimes that claimed to be 'socialist', but also refused to allow workers to actively participate in the production of truth, also refused to allow workers to participate in politics, or in the distribution of social production… in fact, those regimes, which also claimed that 'Truth is not established by democracy', weren't 'socialist' at all.Only the class conscious proletariat, building towards a socialism in which they will themselves determine production, can be the source of any claims for 'truths'.Whilst workers look to any persons or organisations which clearly deny the active role of the revolutionary proletariat in all areas of social production, then those workers will be lied to and fooled. The result will be 'expert rule', by an 'elite' which claims to have a 'special consciousness', a consciousness which is denied to the 'thick working class'.This is the fruit of 'materialism'. Materialism claims that the 'material' ('matter' or 'physical') speaks alone to a 'special elite' (but doesn't speak to workers, who are too poorly educated, or even have no interest, to participate), and so, from the very outset, denies the possibility of democracy in the means of production. For materialists, 'matter' is the 'active side', and so workers cannot vote upon what 'matter' actually 'is'. The materialists argue that 'matter just is', and they claim that they (and they alone) 'know' matter, because they have a non-political method which allows elite minorities to access 'matter', outside of considerations of socio-historical consciousness, or the wishes or purposes of the proletariat.They claim physics is non-political. This is a bourgeois claim, and its emergence can be located in history.This claim leads to the ideological belief that 'Truth' is outside of any considerations of social consciousness, and so outside issues of democracy.Beware, any workers reading, an elite plans openly to deny democracy in the means of production: this elite actually says so, and you should take their open claims seriously.

 Youre just waffling LBird and not making much sense at all.  I note that ,having lied through your teeth in your earlier post about me (and presumably others here too) wanting to "deny democracy in the means of production", you are still persisting with  this line of argument although youve wisely chosen not to name names in this latest attempt of yours to throw mud around in the hope that it wil stick on someone I have made clear what my position is. I see absolutely no point in submitting scientifc theories to a democratic vote.  You have not  once explained why this is necessary and what is supposed to happen once a scientific truth has been democratically voted on.  Is dissenting opinion going to be suppressed after the vote? No? Well then what was the vote supposed to be abou?.  What was its  purpise?  Just to demonstrate that a majority thinks a particular scientific theory was "true"  – or alternatively not "true".  Big deal, then what?  .  In what way  is this democratic decision going to be meaningfully implemented or applied and to what end?.  You dont explain.  You never explain.  You cant explain and that is because, quite clearly, you dont really understand democracy., do you LBird ?  You  don't really understand what it is for. Weve been over this several times but still you dont get it  You can't seem to see that there is a world of difference between calling for "democratic control over the means of production" and calling for a "democratic vote to determine the truth of a scientifc theory,"  The former is  both practical .and necessary in a socialist society; the latter is just plain nuts and betrays a kind of religious cum dogmatic attitude towards "Scientific Truth" that you shoud want to formalise it in this way. And we wont even go into the logistics of organising tens of thousands of  worldwide plebsicites for every scientific theory going becuase I know you are too embarrassed to even attempt an answer – arnet you LBird? – so I will spare you any further embarrassment.Do I think there will be an elite community of astrophysicists in socialism who know a lot more about astrophysics than the average guy in th street.  Absolutely!  Dont you LBird? Answer this – how many years of study do you reckon it takes to become an accomplished astrophysist?  I dont know but lets hazard a guess and say 10 years.  So according to you in order to avoid there being an elite of astrophysicists everyone will need to commit at least ten years of their life to the  intensiive study of astrophysics,  That way we can all be accompished astrophysists, familiar with all the theories circulating in the field of astrophysics and hence able to vote knowledgeably on whether these theories are true or false. Yes?But  hold on a moment – what about the molecular biologists or the oncologists or the people into plate tectonics or the cognitive sceintists and so on and so on.  There are probably thousands upon thousands of different specialisms.  So what are you gonna suggest, LBird?  That we devote 10 years of our lives to each of these as  well? Well, Im sorry to disappoint you but unfortunately we  have only a limited lifespan and we can't do everything So LBird there are only two choices left 1) keep our already incredibly complex social division of labour intact and concede therefore that you are always goig to have experts – what you call the "elite" – in what ever field you care to mention2) abolish this social division so that we all become "jack of all trades" and masters of none and witness the rapid decline of science and technology, followed in short order by the collapse of society's infrastucture and productive capacity Is this an "ideological " statement on my part.  Sure it is! I dont know what you are – presumably some kindi of primitivist by the sound of it –  but I am democratic communist and I am concerned that a socialist or communist society should be able to materially support its population, not collapse into barbarism and a vicious struggle over a  rapidly diminishing pool of resources,  Encouraging expertise is part of what is needed to sustain a level of output that would enable such a society to floursih. That does not mean as you stupidly claim,  that the result will be 'expert rule', by an 'elite' which claims to have a 'special consciousness', a consciousness which is denied to the 'thick working class'. You forget  firstly that there will be no one elite but multiple "elites" in each of their specialised fields. The astrophysicist is not part of the elite of molecular biologists in the field of molecular biology.  Secondly there will be no impediment whatsoever placed on anyone to pursue whatever field interests him or her and to develop expertise in that field. Socialism will be a completely open society in that respect.  That does not mean there will be no examinations and qualifications en route to acquiring expertise. If you imagine just anyine is going to be able to perform the task of a brain surgeon without being qualified to do so then you are seriously deluded. And thirdly what leverage could scientific experts exert over the population at large in a society in which the principles of free access and volunteer labour apply?.  None at all.  And the oorrolary of that is prceisely "democratic control over the means of production". The democratic determination of Scientifc Truth , on the other hand. is an irrelevance and utter baloney

1st warning: 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).

[robbo203]

moderator1 wrote:

 1st warning: 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).

 Er..Moderator, if you care to read more carefully what I read you will see that it is actually a development on what I had previously written, not a mere repetitiion of the latter.  This is what tends to spoil debate on this forum – the occasional over zealous and heavy handed interventions on your part. Can I suggest you try to be a bit more accommodating and flexible by way of moderating your own moderation, eh?

[TheSpanishInquisition]

7 pages generated. Glad I could prompt such a discussion!So, I don't have the space or energy to respond individually to every single post so I'll give my general impressions.It seems to me that Socialism is something that would only work if implemented simultaneously on a global, worldwide scale; essentially forming one super-nation in which everyone works hand in hand with one another. I mean, common ownership of global resources is a pretty neat idea and would prevent monopolies from being created, but these are resources currently owned by a huge array of companies across the world, all of which would need to be bought by the governments. Can the world even afford to do this? It's also immoral to force people to give up their possessions, even if they can be viewed as a globally important resource, and this is one of the many reasons communism is widely accepted as such a terrible idea in practice, despite looking very good on paper – it forces people to give up their possessions. What's to stop the owners of these resources simply saying "no" when asked "do you want to sell your company to the government?" It's obvious that implementing socialism would demand a colossal amount of money, and given we don't even have enough money to hire more doctors, how on earth can we expect to have the money to buy every oil rig that supplies Britain?  So, to take the discussion back to my original question of "what does socialism mean for the country", it currently appears to mean "even more crippling debt but it's OK because we'll only have to pay 60p per litre of petrol."

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

It seems to me that Socialism is something that would only work if implemented simultaneously on a global, worldwide scale; essentially forming one super-nation in which everyone works hand in hand with one another.

You are indeed right in thinking we envisage socialism as being established globally and almost simultaneously. As fr back as 1847 Engels wrote 

Quote:

Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone? No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.It will develop in each of these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace.It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.

Ideas are a social phenonomen and cross borders. Personally i refer to how music genres arise and then travel the globe, or how fashions are adopted across cultures. But where we differ is that you seem to think that we will buy off the capitalists that somehow governments will nationalise and pay compensation to the capitalist class. You say it would be immoral to do anything other but i have to disgree. We are the dispossessed, we are taking back what is rightfully ours in the first place. A look at history demonstrates how the capitalist acquired their wealth. An even the argument that self-made men deserve their riches is false. Apples Steve Jobs ideas would have remained just that…thoughts in his head if it was not for the millions of workers in China building his phones etc…they made his wealth.  This reply, of course, does not do justice to your BIG question and i hope others will offer their contributions or that you yourself come back with more questions. But i will end with this. "But if blood be the price of all your wealth,                              Good God! We have paid it in full!"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty8X_LvGYGI

[ALB]

Socialism/communism is not about taking away people's personal possessions. That's just a scare story put around by those whose property socialism will take away: those who own and control the means for producing goods and services (farms, mines, factories, etc).And they won't be bought out, but simply expropriated without compensation when a majority decide democratically to make the means of production the common property of all, so they can be used to provide for the needs of all instead of to make profits for a few.Nor has socialism anything to do with government ownership. It's about common ownership, which is the same as non-ownership. The means of production won't belong to anyone or any institution, not corporations, not rich individuals, not governments. They will simply be there to be used under democratic control to provide for people's needs in accordance with the principle "from each their ability, to each their needs".

[TheSpanishInquisition]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 We are the dispossessed, we are taking back what is rightfully ours in the first place. 

Since when was oil etc 'rightfully ours'? Oil is a natural product that originally belonged to nobody. Someone found it, realised "this makes a great fuel" then invested huge amounts of money into extracting it and making it available for use by the public. By saying 'rightfully ours' you are implying that you think oil was something that was just lying around for anyone to pick up and use until some capitalist scumbags came and took it all away to sell it back to us, which anyone could tell you obviously isn't true. You also suggest with 'rightfully' that there's some kind of divine law system going on that dictates an absolute correct order, which is also obviously not true. 

[TheSpanishInquisition]

ALB wrote:

And they won't be bought out, but simply expropriated without compensation when a majority decide democratically to make the means of production the common property of all, so they can be used to provide for the needs of all instead of to make profits for a few

So theft, plain and simple. Except it's worse than theft, because it's organised, publicly advertised theft that no one is going to be able to do anything about, and no one's going to punish. You're forcefully taking the possessions of people and pretend you're in the moral right because 'they're rich and rich people don't deserve to have things', which is what your argument feels to boil down to – spite for the rich for being more intelligent and more opportunistic. 

ALB wrote:

Nor has socialism anything to do with government ownership. It's about common ownership, which is the same as non-ownership. The means of production won't belong to anyone or any institution, not corporations, not rich individuals, not governments. They will simply be there to be used under democratic control to provide for people's needs in accordance with the principle "from each their ability, to each their needs".

OK so these public services, owned by no one… who is paying the workers? Taxes? That means the government would be paying for the services, making the government count as investors, and therefore having a say in the way the service is run. 

[ALB]

Ah, the penny's dropped. You weren't the sincere seeker after truth about socialism that you appeared to be but a defender of capitalism. No doubt some sort of mad marketeer. I'm sorry I wasted my time.

[alanjjohnstone]

Can you tell me when the Rockerfeller family, founders of Standard Oil, dirtied their hands drilling for the oil? You should study the history of that dynasty to see just how they acquired their wealth. Perhaps you may refer me to the family of Saud who "discovered" and invested his money to extract the oil under "his" land. I may be wrong but isn't Saudi Arabia the only country named after a ruling family clan? Another history for you to read about.   It is labour that transforms natural resources into wealth. Muscle, sweat and toil and more often than not, blood. Research your mine disters in Virginia. 2010 negligence by Massey Energy was only the last example of the expendibility of the miner. CEO Blankenship was never ever a miner but an accountant. The importance of labour in creating all wealth was a fact recognised long before Marx and was acknowledged by Adam Smith. But why heed classical economists. Didn't Abraham Lincoln say "Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed." ?Why not study "the Enclosures" of England ( a similar process took place worldwide and is still going on) Stealing common land from the poor and driving them to seek work in the cities…factory fodder…It was the Chinese worker in the Foxconn factories that created Steve Jobs and of course we all "know" that Apple pay their due in taxes, don't we? The 19thC industrialists were rightly called "Robber Barons" "The law locks up the man or womanWho steals the goose off the commonBut leaves the greater villain looseWho steals the common from the goose.The law demands that we atoneWhen we take things we do not ownBut leaves the lords and ladies fineWho takes things that are yours and mine."Do your homework before repeating myths. When a so-called self-made man says hard work brought him riches, ask whose hard work? 

[jondwhite]

This is why it is a waste of time framing the case for socialism in moral terms, you get nowhere. What 'rightfully' belongs to whom sounds divinely ordained and is irrelevant.If TheSpanishInquisition thinks resources belong to the rich because the rich are "more intelligent and more opportunistic" then why is the working class by sheer weight of numbers democratically seizing these for the benefit of all considered "theft" and not just the working class being "more intelligent and more opportunistic".If you absolutely must make a moral case for socialism, then rather than oil drills or refineries which is of no use to any individual's needs except to profit, TheSpanishInquisition might like to answer whether access to clean drinking water is a human right or something the likes of Nestle can charge for?

[Young Master Smeet]

TheSpanishInquisition wrote:

So theft, plain and simple. Except it's worse than theft, because it's organised, publicly advertised theft that no one is going to be able to do anything about, and no one's going to punish. You're forcefully taking the possessions of people and pretend you're in the moral right because 'they're rich and rich people don't deserve to have things', which is what your argument feels to boil down to – spite for the rich for being more intelligent and more opportunistic.

Not really, more a case of the state ceasing to enforce they're property right.  But, lets try another tack: imagine if, tomorrow, it was made illegal to be an employer (to use terminology from British law, to be the Master in a contract of service).  That would render almost all capital worthless at a stroke, and the only way in which labour could be secured would be through voluntary co-operation, using the worthless tools to hand.

[Anonymous]

TheSpanishInquisition wrote:

ALB wrote:

And they won't be bought out, but simply expropriated without compensation when a majority decide democratically to make the means of production the common property of all, so they can be used to provide for the needs of all instead of to make profits for a fewTheSpanishInquisition wrote: So theft, plain and simple. Except it's worse than theft, because it's organised, publicly advertised theft that no one is going to be able to do anything about, and no one's going to punish. You're forcefully taking the possessions of people and pretend you're in the moral right because 'they're rich and rich people don't deserve to have things', which is what your argument feels to boil down to – spite for the rich for being more intelligent and more opportunistic.

---

We are merely expropriating the expropriators. All wealth comes from the application of human labour upon the raw materials in conditions of waged slavery  and absolute, actual, or relative poverty for the majority, with privileged access to the means and instruments of producing and distributing this wealth by and for the minority capitalist class. The reason for their Capital accumulationn rather than intelligence and superior or intelligent application of opportunity .The richest 1% probably are just as likely to have their economic affairs managed for them.Generally if one is born poor, one will die poor and the converse if one is born rich, one will die rich.

---

ALB wrote:

Nor has socialism anything to do with government ownership. It's about common ownership, which is the same as non-ownership. The means of production won't belong to anyone or any institution, not corporations, not rich individuals, not governments. They will simply be there to be used under democratic control to provide for people's needs in accordance with the principle "from each their ability, to each their needs".

TheSpanishInquisition wrote: OK so these public services, owned by no one… who is paying the workers? Taxes? That means the government would be paying for the services, making the government count as investors, and therefore having a say in the way the service is run. [/quote]

---

Government is an essential feature of capitalist society. How else will it keep workers in check, arbitrate over capitalist disputes and plunder other capitalist groups resources ,with war and the war science of Nagasaki and Hiroshima ( by the 'good guys') inevitable concomitants of the capitalist system,along with absolute actual and relative poverty.There will be no government, over 'people', but rather,democratic administration by the people, over 'things'.Socialism is a commonly owned, production for use, free access, post capitalist society. There is no need for money, taxes, or any means of exchange.

[Author]

Posts