Socialism can never be fully realized because it relies on giving the state total control over the entire means of production, and seizing that control through force.
So you either have democratic elections for the leaders of the State, and the common people are stupid and easily swayed by populism, which opens the door for leaders like Stalin or Mao to take power. Or you remove democracy and have it ruled by committee, which does the same thing.
But once you give the State absolute power, you’re fucked anyway.
Socialism doesn’t rely on any state. The workers who actuallyedo labour in the means of production should own them. Because if “the state” (or rather:some bureaucrat) owns the means of production, you’d have the exact same property structure as in capitalism. More specifidally: state capitalism.
Stop believing that BS that the USSR was actually socialist after the Bolsheviks seized power. That was sirply state propaganda that both the Kremlin and Washington each used for their own narrative.
And there are more ways to have democracy than representative democracy. A decentralized democratic structure of communes with delegates instead of representatives would be way more democratic than any current “democracy” of the western world.
Socialism is the common/collective ownership of the means of production.
So, instead of a private unit deciding the rules, the collective decides the rules, yes?
If workers are a part of the collective, how do they decide how they’re managed? There’s a lot of answers, but thinking any of them through tends to show the dishonesty inherent to the ideology.
Maybe there’s a strict system of rules to follow. Who decides on those rules, also the collective, right?
Maybe they can vote for certain rules or actions to take place. Who decides when to vote, what to vote for, or how the vote takes place? I guess the answer is still the collective, it has to be or else it isn’t socialism, right?
That would be crazy if we did that for everything in our society right? Like if we just voted for absolutely everything, nothing would ever get done. At some point for certain things we’ll just have to agree there’s a correct answer we don’t have to think about. There’s certain decisions the elective body doesn’t need to constantly make, so the collective would probably appoint elected officials to make decisions in certain categories of expertise.
So, the collective makes collective decisions about how the collective should operate. The collective is the governing body of everything in the collective. The collective IS the state.
If you dilute the definition of the state so much that it loses all its’ characteristics, then anything can be a state, correct. If anything collective can be a state, then my gardening association is a state. Time to print ourown money and declare our garden sovereign territory. /s
My preferred definition of a state is the institution which pacifies class tensions with a monopoly on violence. Another definition I like is based on David Graeber and David Wengrow, in which a modern state combines power over people through violence (police and military), control of knowledge (bureaucracy) and persuation (people believe in states, therefore they work).
Neither of these kinds of states are necessary to have a democratic society which makes decisions from the bottom up, instead of top-down.
You claim that thinking things through leads to “dishonesty inherent in the ideology”. Yst, you fail to bring up any examples. Just because you lack creativity, doesn’t mean you’ve disproven that basic democracy doesn’t work. People wouldn’t vote for “absolutely everything”, but people who are affected by political decisions have a say in those decisions, proportional to how much they’re affected. If I don’t care about something, I won’t vote on it. Easy as that.
And think of what you’re advocating: The “private unit” you’re describing is de facto a dictator. No one voted for my boss. Yet they can make any decision without hearing any of the workers out. It is an opt-out dictatorship, yes. But given how much I need that specific job, opting out could mean that I can’t pay my rent to the appartment-dictator. Opting out of that tenancy dictatorship would mean that I don’t have any shelter and probably get harrassed by cops.
I’m not sure that my ideology is the dishonest one, to be frank.
It’s not that it’s a collective, it’s that it’s a body that governs the collective. What I was describing were acts of governance. Since a state is a governing body, I’d say what I described fits that bill just fine. States having a monopoly on violence is a great observation, but it’s not a necessary part of the definition.
The dishonesty I was referring to is that some socialists claim it refers to worker ownership, but is actually the state ownership of the means of production.
For the record, I have not advocated for anything here. I can tell you can tell I’m not a socialist and that’s fine, but I’m also not a full on capitalist. I just think it’s silly to suggest that socialism doesn’t rely on any state. The theoretical conclusion of complete socialism is one governing collective having complete control over how basically everything functions (i.e. totalitarianism), while the theoretical conclusion of full capitalism is exclusive private control over absolutely everything, implying no governing state (i.e. actual anarchy).
Name one state in history which doesn’t have a monopoly on violence. You can use your less specific definition, if you want. But then arguing with other people will probably get nowhere and/or be very confusing.
And since I don’t know what you mean by state, please tell me what you mean by “governing body”.
The dishonesty I was referring to is that some socialists claim it refers to worker ownership, but is actually the state ownership of the means of production.
I exclusively mean the workers ownership of the means of production. If there are no workers, because for example it’s a patch of land (that doesn’t require heavy farming), then the community who lives near that land and use it to feed themselves owns it. As soon as someone from the upper levels of some hierarchy latter (be it economic or bureaucratic) owns the means of production, I wouldn’t call it socialism anymore.
The theoretical conclusion of complete socialism is one governing collective having complete control over how basically everything functions (i.e. totalitarianism), while the theoretical conclusion of full capitalism is exclusive private control over absolutely everything, implying no governing state (i.e. actual anarchy).
You’re always implying that collective ownership somehow leads to top-down rule rather than bottom-up rule. How does that happen? If the whole society is based on bottom-up democratic decisions, where does it get authoritarian?
I also wholeheartedly disagree with your definition of “actual anarchy”. Private ownership needs some kind of monopoly of violence to actually enforce the private ownership. Also: Where do you think private ownership came from? Do you think it naturally emerged from the first time humanity coordinated itself collectively, back when we were hunters and gatherers?
Also, private ownership of the means of production is actually a dictatorship over those means. Or rather: the workers who work in them. If I can tell everyone what to do, or they’ll have to leave, then that’s an opt-out dictatorship. That’s clearly a hierarchy. How can you call that “actual anarchy”? Especially if people need the job or whatever is produced in that factory/workshop/farm to survive.
Yes it 100% does. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the fundamental cornerstone of transitioning from a capitalist society to a communist society in Marxist philosophy.
It requires a revolution by the proletariat overthrowing the government and implementing a single party state rule with absolute power to forcibly seize the means of production, and firmly wield their monopoly on force to prevent counterrevolution.
There’s no arguing against that when talking about Marxist communism. It’s fundamentally integral to it.
You yourself explained why in reality it doesn’t work that way. Bakunin was proven right by history. The state is a tool for pacifying class tensions with violence. That is Marx’s own definition.
That a single party rule is necessary is fan fiction by Lenin. Even Marx himself disliked the vanguardist tendencies or the people calling themselves “Marxist”.
Communism doesn’t need Marx. A classless, moneyless society according to the paradime “To each according to their needs, from each according to their ability” (i.e.: communism) existed way before Marx, for example in indigenous American tribes.
Socialism is described as the workers owning the means of production. If the state owns the MOP, the workers’ property relations mean squat.
Marx additionally was proven wrong in his claim that the peasantry can’t be a revolutionary class with the Catalonian revolution. Who introduced proper socialism without a state-aparatus.
That a single party rule is necessary is fan fiction by Lenin.
It’s straight from Marx himself, not Lenin.
Socialism is described as the workers owning the means of production. If the state owns the MOP, the workers’ property relations mean squat.
And who is going to enforce the worker ownership of the means of production without a State having the final say?
Marx additionally was proven wrong in his claim that the peasantry can’t be a revolutionary class with the Catalonian revolution. Who introduced proper socialism without a state-aparatus.
Revolutionary Catalonia lasted less than 10 months as a socialist state before falling. Idk if you can say they successfully implemented proper socialism when they couldn’t even make it through one year.
And who is going to enforce the worker ownership of the means of production without a State having the final say?
The workers? Why do you think that majority rule over something needs to be enforced?
Revolutionary Catalonia lasted less than 10 months as a socialist state before falling. Idk if you can say they successfully implemented proper socialism when they couldn’t even make it through one year.
Do you know, why it collapsed? Certainly not because they failed to implement socialism and rather went back to * checks notes * a fascist corporate regime.
Socialism can never be fully realized because it relies on giving the state total control over the entire means of production, and seizing that control through force.
So you either have democratic elections for the leaders of the State, and the common people are stupid and easily swayed by populism, which opens the door for leaders like Stalin or Mao to take power. Or you remove democracy and have it ruled by committee, which does the same thing.
But once you give the State absolute power, you’re fucked anyway.
Socialism doesn’t rely on any state. The workers who actuallyedo labour in the means of production should own them. Because if “the state” (or rather:some bureaucrat) owns the means of production, you’d have the exact same property structure as in capitalism. More specifidally: state capitalism.
Stop believing that BS that the USSR was actually socialist after the Bolsheviks seized power. That was sirply state propaganda that both the Kremlin and Washington each used for their own narrative.
And there are more ways to have democracy than representative democracy. A decentralized democratic structure of communes with delegates instead of representatives would be way more democratic than any current “democracy” of the western world.
Socialism without a state should be the goal.
Socialism is the common/collective ownership of the means of production.
So, instead of a private unit deciding the rules, the collective decides the rules, yes?
If workers are a part of the collective, how do they decide how they’re managed? There’s a lot of answers, but thinking any of them through tends to show the dishonesty inherent to the ideology.
Maybe there’s a strict system of rules to follow. Who decides on those rules, also the collective, right?
Maybe they can vote for certain rules or actions to take place. Who decides when to vote, what to vote for, or how the vote takes place? I guess the answer is still the collective, it has to be or else it isn’t socialism, right?
That would be crazy if we did that for everything in our society right? Like if we just voted for absolutely everything, nothing would ever get done. At some point for certain things we’ll just have to agree there’s a correct answer we don’t have to think about. There’s certain decisions the elective body doesn’t need to constantly make, so the collective would probably appoint elected officials to make decisions in certain categories of expertise.
So, the collective makes collective decisions about how the collective should operate. The collective is the governing body of everything in the collective. The collective IS the state.
If you dilute the definition of the state so much that it loses all its’ characteristics, then anything can be a state, correct. If anything collective can be a state, then my gardening association is a state. Time to print ourown money and declare our garden sovereign territory. /s
My preferred definition of a state is the institution which pacifies class tensions with a monopoly on violence. Another definition I like is based on David Graeber and David Wengrow, in which a modern state combines power over people through violence (police and military), control of knowledge (bureaucracy) and persuation (people believe in states, therefore they work). Neither of these kinds of states are necessary to have a democratic society which makes decisions from the bottom up, instead of top-down.
You claim that thinking things through leads to “dishonesty inherent in the ideology”. Yst, you fail to bring up any examples. Just because you lack creativity, doesn’t mean you’ve disproven that basic democracy doesn’t work. People wouldn’t vote for “absolutely everything”, but people who are affected by political decisions have a say in those decisions, proportional to how much they’re affected. If I don’t care about something, I won’t vote on it. Easy as that.
And think of what you’re advocating: The “private unit” you’re describing is de facto a dictator. No one voted for my boss. Yet they can make any decision without hearing any of the workers out. It is an opt-out dictatorship, yes. But given how much I need that specific job, opting out could mean that I can’t pay my rent to the appartment-dictator. Opting out of that tenancy dictatorship would mean that I don’t have any shelter and probably get harrassed by cops.
I’m not sure that my ideology is the dishonest one, to be frank.
It’s not that it’s a collective, it’s that it’s a body that governs the collective. What I was describing were acts of governance. Since a state is a governing body, I’d say what I described fits that bill just fine. States having a monopoly on violence is a great observation, but it’s not a necessary part of the definition.
The dishonesty I was referring to is that some socialists claim it refers to worker ownership, but is actually the state ownership of the means of production.
For the record, I have not advocated for anything here. I can tell you can tell I’m not a socialist and that’s fine, but I’m also not a full on capitalist. I just think it’s silly to suggest that socialism doesn’t rely on any state. The theoretical conclusion of complete socialism is one governing collective having complete control over how basically everything functions (i.e. totalitarianism), while the theoretical conclusion of full capitalism is exclusive private control over absolutely everything, implying no governing state (i.e. actual anarchy).
Name one state in history which doesn’t have a monopoly on violence. You can use your less specific definition, if you want. But then arguing with other people will probably get nowhere and/or be very confusing.
And since I don’t know what you mean by state, please tell me what you mean by “governing body”.
I exclusively mean the workers ownership of the means of production. If there are no workers, because for example it’s a patch of land (that doesn’t require heavy farming), then the community who lives near that land and use it to feed themselves owns it. As soon as someone from the upper levels of some hierarchy latter (be it economic or bureaucratic) owns the means of production, I wouldn’t call it socialism anymore.
You’re always implying that collective ownership somehow leads to top-down rule rather than bottom-up rule. How does that happen? If the whole society is based on bottom-up democratic decisions, where does it get authoritarian?
I also wholeheartedly disagree with your definition of “actual anarchy”. Private ownership needs some kind of monopoly of violence to actually enforce the private ownership. Also: Where do you think private ownership came from? Do you think it naturally emerged from the first time humanity coordinated itself collectively, back when we were hunters and gatherers?
Also, private ownership of the means of production is actually a dictatorship over those means. Or rather: the workers who work in them. If I can tell everyone what to do, or they’ll have to leave, then that’s an opt-out dictatorship. That’s clearly a hierarchy. How can you call that “actual anarchy”? Especially if people need the job or whatever is produced in that factory/workshop/farm to survive.
For further info, I suggest you to read this. It’s very informative. If you prefer videos, there’s this one.
Yes it 100% does. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the fundamental cornerstone of transitioning from a capitalist society to a communist society in Marxist philosophy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat
It requires a revolution by the proletariat overthrowing the government and implementing a single party state rule with absolute power to forcibly seize the means of production, and firmly wield their monopoly on force to prevent counterrevolution.
There’s no arguing against that when talking about Marxist communism. It’s fundamentally integral to it.
You yourself explained why in reality it doesn’t work that way. Bakunin was proven right by history. The state is a tool for pacifying class tensions with violence. That is Marx’s own definition.
That a single party rule is necessary is fan fiction by Lenin. Even Marx himself disliked the vanguardist tendencies or the people calling themselves “Marxist”.
Communism doesn’t need Marx. A classless, moneyless society according to the paradime “To each according to their needs, from each according to their ability” (i.e.: communism) existed way before Marx, for example in indigenous American tribes. Socialism is described as the workers owning the means of production. If the state owns the MOP, the workers’ property relations mean squat.
Marx additionally was proven wrong in his claim that the peasantry can’t be a revolutionary class with the Catalonian revolution. Who introduced proper socialism without a state-aparatus.
It’s straight from Marx himself, not Lenin.
And who is going to enforce the worker ownership of the means of production without a State having the final say?
Revolutionary Catalonia lasted less than 10 months as a socialist state before falling. Idk if you can say they successfully implemented proper socialism when they couldn’t even make it through one year.
Sure it is. /s
The workers? Why do you think that majority rule over something needs to be enforced?
Do you know, why it collapsed? Certainly not because they failed to implement socialism and rather went back to * checks notes * a fascist corporate regime.