Socialism for dummies

[zoidberg]

I'm looking for a plain-English explanation of the basic beliefs of socialism from one of the boards self-proclaimed socialists. How would a socialist society work? How is it decided what gets made and who gets the stuff that is made? What society most resembles your idea of true socialism?

[BushNixon04]

1. ummmmmm

if you are equating socialism with communism or Stalinism, as is so often done, you are barking up the wrong tree.

If you want an explanation of democratic socialism and the reasons so many people embrace it, ask a Canadian.

[zoidberg]

6. ?????

I'm asking a neutral question with an open mind. My current bias is very much against socialism, but I've honestly never tried to really understand the system before. I know there are many socialists on this board, and hopefully at least one of them will be kind enough to answer my questions - or at least point me in the right direction.

What exactly is the difference between socialism and democratic socialism?

[wuushew]

8. As a capitalist

can you define the difference between capitalism and democratic capitalism. I know which way the country is headed and the opposite direction of that push is towards socialism. That alone is reason enough to support it.

[zoidberg]

11. I've never heard the term 'democratic capitalism'

Therefore I don't know what to define. If somebody used the term 'democratic capitalism', I'd expect that they also be willing to define it.

Your logic is baffling to me. If you are indeed a democrat (small 'd') and the majority of the country is headed one way, why the automatic tendency to go the other way?

[wuushew]

13. Because the direction we are headed towards is fascism!

surely I did not need to use the </sarcasm> tag?

Capitalism is great but society is losing ground, in many respects this country needs to return to the year 1968 when wealth inequity was smaller, labor unions were stronger and the fervor of big social spending was in vouge.

[zoidberg]

16. Ahh, that's right. We are headed towards fascism

You made it sound like we were all becoming capitalist and therefore we need to head towards socialism. How about socialism makes it the opposite of fascism?

[cprise]

29. communism is the opposite of fascism

...in so far as any major political movement that has come into existence. They are opposites much the way your mirror reflection is an 'opposite'.

Socialism and capitalism are economic theories (and traditions) that are mutually-exclusive (opposite) only in their extreme form. If you're a glass-half-full type, then they can complement each other.

[leftyandproud]

35. We are NOT headed for fascism..

but something FAR WORSE.

Communism is government OWNERSHIP of the economy/corporations.
Fascism is government CONTROL of the economy/corporations.

Today, we have CORPORATE control over the GOVERNMENT!...something new entirely....and far more dangerous in my view.

[rogerashton]

21. In so far as capitalism is an economic system,

i.e. a predominantly market economy with private property in productive assets, it might be either democratic or more or less despotic.

However, Marx was the first to use the term "capitalist" and he used it in a political sense -- in which the small minority of proprietors of large-scale productive assets constitute the ruling class. In that sense democratic capitalism is a contradiction in terms.

[SoCalDem]

12. google.com is your friend

:)

[cprise]

2. The best overview I've seen

...is on Wikipedia. It covers the social-democrats all the way through communists.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

[zoidberg]

7. Thanks for the link

Quick, painless, and very fair to all sides. Thanks again.

[papau]

10. I thought there was book Socialism for Dummies at B&N

not a joke

there was - I think - such a book

[zoidberg]

14. I wouldn't doubt it

I might have to see if they have it next time I go to the library. Most writing about socialism is such a mine-field of 'dialectic this' and 'petty Bourgeois that' that I really have a hard time getting through a couple pages.

[durutti]

26. Communism for Dummies

But it's written from a decidedly pro-capitalist perspective.

[durutti]

28. Not Terribly Accurate

Lenin did advocate multi-pary democracy. It was Stalin who didn't. The Soviet gov't declared Russian Social Democrats' party an illegal terrorist organization only after they attempted to kill various Bolshevik leaders.

Also, the article refers to the post-Lenin Soviet system as "almost universally disliked". Not really true. The system had many flaws, yes, but no one starved in the streets. No one went without medical care. Also, keep in mind that the USSR was a younger country than the United States. It was no less democratic than the United States was at the same age.

It's also worth noting that the Communist Party is still the most popular party in Russia. Communist parties hold significant numbers of seats in the parliaments of Japan, India, Greece, the Czech Republic, and many other countries.

[cprise]

33. Thanks for clarifying

It would be a good idea to send a message to wikkipedia (citing sources).

And welcome to DU! :hi:

[ma4t]

36. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this

"The system had many flaws, yes, but no one starved in the streets."

Perhaps duritti has forgotten the accounts of the planned starvation of the small landowners (kulaks) under Stalin. This was a mass extermination that surpassed the numbers that Hitler could achieve during the Holocaust. The only thing that makes duritti's unfortunate statement technically correct is that there were not many streets in the countryside so those who starved were not "in the streets". However; they did starve by the millions in their homes and fields.

I would suggest that the many would-be apologists for the Soviet Union here read The Gulag Archipelago.

[the_sam]

41. Sorry... not including Stalin

That should've read no one after Stalin starved in the streets.

Yes, Stalin did terrible things. They shouldn't have happened. However, all countries have their bloody revolutions. How many Native Americans were massacred by the early Americans? How many died in the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution?

Also, many Marxists (including this one) hold that Stalinism was an example of Bonapartism. Bonapartism is the sort of repressive, terroristic rule that occurs when there isn't a clearly-defined ruling class, so the government acts independently of class interests to "restore order". It is a state gone out of control.

[leftyandproud]

3. simple

from each according to his ability
to each according to his need

wow, that was quick ;)

seriously, check out the "Isms" series at your library. They have "Catpialism--Opposing Viewpoints", "Socialism--Opposing Viewpoints" etc etc...it's a nice series with good essays for and against.

[Nederland]

43. Good definition

from each according to his ability, to each according to his need

A good definition, and one that explains why socialist countries so often have problems. The system at its heart completely disconnects a person's standard of living from how hard they work. It is, in its essense, a completely unnatural and artifical environment.

[wuushew]

4. I like the French model

of heavily regulated industry and public ownership and control over utilities and healthcare

[Pillowbiter]

5. I too am interested in what other socialists have to say

I consider myself a Democratic Socialist, and there is even a sub-party called that in most local governments. I don't think pure socialism (just like pure communism, capitalism, whatever) will work. I am also on the socialism light side of the spectrum, as I beleive socialism is needed for things that everybody needs, such as medical care and education, but should have nothing to do with business and luxuries.

Though I'm not sure I've answered any of your questions, because I think the people in a society should decide how it works.

Awaiting other responses.

PB

[papau]

9. A balance of power with unions not seen as evil is a start

but that means rules and regulations on how the corporation treats people

as people get rights the corp seems to lose them

it is zero sum

except total happy-ness seems to increase.

[w4rma]

15. socialism, capitalism, democracy, totalitarianism

capitalism and socialism are opposite ends of an axis.
democracy and dictatorship/monarchy are opposite ends of another axis.

A state can be totalitarian and capitalist (fascism):

"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

A state can be totalitarian and socialist (communism)
A state can be democratic and capitalist.
A state can be democratic and socialist.
A state can be anywhere inbetween the two axis. The U.S. has both capitalist policies and socialist policies.

Here is a list of some of the socialist ones:
socialized armed forces
socialized water
socialized police
socialized fired department
social(ized) security
medicare
road building/maintanance
public waste and water treatment
public schools

[zoidberg]

18. So socialism is not the opposite of fascism?

As post #13 suggests? But is there a tendency for one economic system to be tied to one political system. Liberals (in the old-time sense of the word) claim that economic freedom must lead to political freedom. Hayek argued that socialism must lead to dictatorship. Are the two axis independent, or does movement along one suggest movement along the other?

[w4rma]

23. democratic socialism is the opposite of fascism/corporatism

socialism is the opposite of capitalism

[zoidberg]

24. What are the terms for democrat/capitalist and democrat/socialist?

n/m

[cprise]

31. Our terms

...in the USA do not address those combinations. You could say that "Libertarian" implies the former, and "Democrat" implies the latter. But it's too simplistic, and slippery.

In Europe (and elsewhere) they would be "Liberal" or "Liberal Democrat" or "laissez faire" (liberation for capital), and "Social-Democrat" or "Green" respectively (collective responsibility).

[ursacorwin]

17. i'll speak for myself, and no one else

because most of the time, people think i'm crazy...

that said: there has never been a true socialist state in recent history. there have been and are many examples of the kind of community i think of as socialist: kibbutzes, eco-communes, indigenous populations living according to traditional practice, religious communities. but so far, modern humans haven't been able to overcome pressures which cause societies to organize in hierarchies.

my socialism has to do with the elimination of the ideology that individuals can be the sole owners of land, technology, etc. no one can make or own anything without the help of others, and i think it's high time we started to recognize that fact. certainly people can be original in their thinking, or creative with their hands etc., but in my view we all live on the same planet and its resources and habitats are the "property" of all. thus, the first position in my ideal state is one of shared responsibility, and stewardship, of the assets of the state.

but i'm sort of an anarchist in this next part- everyone in my system has equal rights to do as they please, for as long and until some one else comes along to change it. i know this sounds nutty, but i think it could work. when people don't have to go to work to eat and have shelter, and when they are freed from the ideologies which teach them they must do/be X in order to be successful, i think they will for the most part make intelligent and reasonable choices. i think people could be very attracted to this idea if they let themselves, and that they would fight to keep such a system and its freedoms in place. what a wonder it would be to see free, self-organizing communities spring up all over the place, each determined by the people who populate it and their collective will to maintain it. the variety already inherent in American society guarantees that sooner or later, there would be a community for every taste.

and finally, i'd modify slightly the socialist idea that everyone is responsible for government. thus, each citizen in my ideal society would rotate in to government positions, temporarily and for one time only in a life. no campaigns, but no corruption either. my socialist government would be extremely limited, and flexible, and utterly open and public. basically, the only function i see for such a government is self-defense and the maintainence of specific services that were agreed upon in advance. health care and possibly education are two areas that come to mind.

how does stuff get made? well, in my system a lot less would be made, because the corporations wouldn't be there shoving junk down consumer throats all the time. people would make things because they wanted to, and loved to share their work with others. sound crazy? i don't think so- look at how much people publish on the internet, for no financial compensation and for strangers, and you've an idea of what i mean.

but what about food, and shelter for those who can't farm or work with their hands? to that i'd say that if we set our minds to it, the technology exists already to make a simpler, but still wholly modern life with most of its comforts for all. this part of the system would have to be set up at the time my ideal state was created, but again- it's not that hard. going back to earlier times (and having lived on a ranch as a youth) i can tell you that given a choice, many people would choose (natural, non-factory) farm life just for the joy of sharing what they've grown. same too with builders- i bet there are 0000s of white collar guys out there who'd love nothing more than to pick up a hammer and make something for a change. but the point is, if profit is not the motivation to get something done, and people agree in advance what "basics" they'd want to have, the technology is there to make it happen, and pronto.

i haven't always been such an idealist, for a long time i believed that some form of capitalism would always exist. and i still think it, but now i've come to see that sooner or later capitalism will destroy us all. we've already put profit over people's health, safety and education, now we're invading nations so that about 1000 people can be trillionaires instead of mere billionaires. it's madness. but when enough of us little people are dead, starving, radioactive or just fed up, i think that the cooperative approach will catch on.

anyone who wants to read a better version of what i've just wrote should go get the book "the cassini division" by ken macleod. it's an elegant and simple society that has all the comforts of modern technology, and none of the ideology that convinces so many that death is preferable to life.

[zoidberg]

20. But who picks up the garbage?

Cliched rebuttal I know, but appropriate here. My crazy libertarian prof (I'm libertarian and this guy was nuts) once said that a family is the perfect socialist society. He was right, but I don't see how the love and selflessness that makes a family work could be applied to society at large.

And if there is no ownership of land, how do you solve the problem of over-utilization that always comes up in communal ownership? Would government take over the role that markets currently do in allocated scarce resources?

[JanMichael]

32. Who says that's such a "bad" occupation?

I'd rather do that than be a Proctologist any day of the week;-)

As to "over-utilization"? That happens in this economy too. Witness pharmacuticals making gobs of hard-on, and hair, drugs. Is that the optimum utilization of these high technology firms? While I wouldn't suggest that that particular industry is purely a Zero-Sum game I can imagine that there are some truly important medicines being neglected by out system.

"Over-Utilization" could also be compared to the Under-Utilization of the Human Factor encased, entombed, in our "under" classes. To me that is the worst sort of inefficiency.

The specifics are probably beyond any of us here anyway. American Socialism will evolve in a unique way, the little "Devil/Details" questions will be fleshed out once committments are made.

I have faith in people.

On a side note I very much consider myself a "Libertarian" Socialist. You want to smoke something? Fine. You want to fuck (pardon the language) someone (even of thesame sex)? Fine. You want to ingest so called illicite drugs? Fine. You want to read any book? Fine.

The only caveat?

Everyone works.


PS~ Except those that obviously can't. Even then though there is almost always something productive that even the most disabled can do.

[cprise]

34. "a family is the perfect socialist society"

Whoaaah Nessie!

That is almost a line right out of German National Socialism (Nazis)! The German 'race' of course being the extended family, and the corporate heirarchy being a "less bureaucratic" instrument of production because it is modeled on the "natural" interactions of the family (father = chief executive).

The Nazis were a reaction to the communist movements toward material plenty and 'equality' for everyone. Communism was international and race-less and more than a bit abstract. Fascism countered with an utmost reverence for action (corporate and military decisiveness) and identity (nationality), and the Nazis married this to the considerable credibility of communism (at the time) with "National Socialism": The state protecting and advancing the racial-->corporate-->family interests and identity against "faceless communism".

Hence you see many people on DU with a clue who may cry out "fascism" when they speak of the neo-cons protecting corporations at the expense of everyone else.

The fascist dictators in Italy and Germany both were called "father". In their minds, there could be no "artificial constructs" like parlaiments or presidents to compete with the furher as a natural role model.

[rogerashton]

19. Nobel Laureate Economist

W. Arthur Lewis, in his Fabian booklet "Principles of Economic Planning" says that British Laborite socialists held two principles: democracy and the classless society. Thus, from his point of view, which I endorse, the essence of socialism is a society without distinctions of class. If it is also democratic, then it is democratic socialism. My own opinion, which I think Lewis shared, is that undemocratic socialism is not a real possibility, since a ruling oligarchy will always evolve into a ruling class, and for proof, note the history of the Soviet Union. So any REAL socialism will be democratic. All the same it is a valid logical distinction. Lewis also observed that government control of the economy is a means to socialist objectives, not an objective in itself, and should be discarded by socialists if it were not successful in promoting those objectives, and it was his opinion, and is mine, that it was not successful.

(Lewis, of Afro-Jamaican ancestry, is another economist who lent distinction to the Nobel Memorial prize when he received it.)

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs," is communism, not socialism. In this small-c sense, communism is an economic ideal, not a political party, and should not be identified with Communist Parties. Anarchist communism has at least an equally long history, although it has never been victorious for more than a few years.

There is no conflict between communism and socialism, and the Leninist idea that communism is a higher form of socialism is reasonable if not certain, in my view. I personally see no reason why communism could not be democratic, but I know of no major "democratic communist" movements. Would anyone like to try to start one?

My ideas on how a cooperative socialist economy might function can be found at

http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/polemica.html

[TreasonousBastard]

22. Start here...

for some basic definitions:

http://www.turnleft.com/glossary.html

What anyone throwing these terms around has to realize is that they are all theoretical and have little to do with the real world. Every society since the dawn of history has had elements of each of them, and simply choosing one of them as an economic basis would never work.

My personal view is that there are some things the state does very well and some things private capital does very well. There are also a few things either one can do well. The only argument I see is figuring out which is which.

Strictly speaking, Soviet Communism was socialism, not communism, and we see how well that worked. On the other hand, certain sectors of the economy, such as electrical generation, roadbuilding, healthcare, some transportation, and much commodity production, such as coal mining, some farming, could, or have been, well done by governemnts.

Today, many alleged socialists, like me, don't talk all that much about the means of production, but about the "social" aspects of socialism-- more about social justice. Let's start with socialized medicine, low-income housing...

[durutti]

25. Socialist Here

I would define socialism as the democratization of the economy. That's the one elements that all the various forms of socialism -- utopian, anarchist, Marxist, etc. -- have in common.

The workplace would be the basic organ of democratic expression in a socialist society. Decisions made by that particular workplace would be made by popular vote of all the workers in that workplace. Managers, if necessary, would be elected.

Workers would elect mandated, recallable delegates from their workplaces to participate in workers' councils in which representatives from all regional workplace come together to determine political decisions, as well as the type and quantity of production of various goods.

In a socialist society, everyone able to work who does work a certain bare minimum would be guaranteed the bare necessities -- food, clothing, housing, medical care, etc.

A great deal of emphasis would be placed on automating unpleasant tasks, like cleaning toilets. Where such tasks could not be automated, they would be shared in by everyone, so as to minimize the amount of time any one person has to spending doing them.

Another crucial emphasis of socialist society is to expand production to the point where scarcity of necessities is no longer an issue. In advanced capitalist societies, this has pretty much already happened.

People would be paid according to quality and quantity of work, just as they are now. However, there wouldn't be as many huge disparities of income as there are now. One reason is that investors and CEOs are eliminated.

By automating production and sharing in unpleasant tasks, the goal of a socialist society is to enable people to have more time to do what they want to do, and hopefully to devote that time to art, science, and the like. As Marx put it, "...nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind..."

Now, to introduce you to some of the debates in socialist politics...

The first important debate you should be familiar with is reform vs. revolution. Reformist socialists view social welfare programs, minimum wage hikes, democratic nationalization of industry, etc. as stepping stones to socialism. They believe that the state is essentially autonomous terrain, and that a socialist party can win seats in Congress or parliament and "reform" the capitalist state into a socialist one. Some reformist socialists, called democratic socialists or reform communists, think that this is a viable path to socialism as described above. Others, called social-democrats, hold that socialism will only be acheived in the far future if ever, and so concentrate instead on building welfare states. Others, called market socialists, support socialism as described above but also support using capitalist markets as the means to determine distribution. Social-democrats and market socialists are often criticized by many (including this writer) as not really being socialists. In the U.S., these forms of socialism are best represented by Democratic Socialists of America, currents within the Socialist Party USA, currents within Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, currents within Solidarity, currents within the Communist Party USA, and many Greens. Some democratic socialists are active in the Democratic Party.

Revolutionists see reforms as means by which capitalism is preserved. Through welfare programs, the state protects people from the worst of capitalism, and therefore keeps people from wanting to overthrow it. For tactical reasons, most revolutionists do critically support reforms, but see them as inherently limited and not enough. Revolutionists instead support political revolution, usually seen as necessarily violent (though some revolutionists are pacifists).

The first major split among revolutionist factions was between Marxist revolutionists (there are "democratic" or "reformist" Marxists too) and anarchism. Marxists generally believe in replacing the capitalist state with a socialist one. The socialist state is seen as a stepping stone to a classless, moneyless, stateless society, called communism. There are few purely Marxist parties in the U.S. today, though the Socialist Labor Party comes close.

Anarchists, in contrast, believe that any state will lead to the creation of a new ruling class -- a dictatorship over the proletariat, rather than of the proletariat -- and that it's essentially necessary to move from capitalism directly to communism (more on anarchism can be found at www.anarchistfaq.org). Most members of Industrial Workers of the World are anarchists. There are many small anarchist groups in the U.S.

There are further divisions among Marxist revolutionists. The first is between Leninists and others. Leninists believe that the working class will never become sufficiently class-conscious to create revolution by itself. So, the "most advanced" workers -- the few who see things as they really are -- must form a revolutionary "vanguard" party to lead the revolution. There are very few purely Leninist groups in the U.S., though many Trotskyist groups come close.

Other forms of Marxist revolutionism see revolution as more spontaneous, and reject the concept of the vanguard party as authoritarian and elitist. One organization holding this view is the News & Letters Committee.

Within Leninism, there is another split: the split between Stalinists and Trotskyists. Stalinists (who are regarded by many, including (again) this writer as being not really socialists) are basically nationalists. They believe that since the "vanguard" party is supposed to be the party of the workers, and since the goal of socialism is to abolish all classes but the proletariat, political democracy is not necessary -- a distortion of Marx's ideas, to say the least. Stalinist economies are planned from the top-down. Many Communist Party USA members are Stalinists.

Maoism accepts many of the ideas of Stalinism, but rejects others. Maoists believe that the worldwide socialist revolution will be led by Third World peasants and workers. They also believe that struggle between the working class and the capitalist class (which constantly threatens to resurface, in their view, under socialism) continues under socialism is a process called "cultural revolution". In the advanced capitalist countries, Maoist parties usually place a special emphasis on the struggles of oppressed minorities. Some regard the white working class of imperialist countries as a "labor aristocracy", and not revolutionary. Maoist groups in the U.S. include the Maoist Internationalist Movement, the Revolutionary Communist Party, the Progressive Labor Party, and to some extent, Freedom Road Socialist Organization.

Trotskyists believe in multi-pary democracy. They believe in bottom-up democracy through workers' councils. There are important divisions within Trotskyism, however. Orthodox Trotskyists ("Trotskyite" is considered derogatory) believe that the Soviet Union was a "deformed workers' state", not socialist but more progressive than capitalism. It had to be changed by a political revolution of the Soviet workers. Trotskyists are divided in whether or not to extend this definition to North Korea, China, etc. Orthodox Trots in the U.S. the Spartacist League and the League for the Revolutionary Party.

Unorthodox Trotskyists think that the Soviet Union was a "bureaucratic collectivist" or "state-capitalist" state, just as bad as Western capitalism. Unorthdox Trotskyist groups in the U.S. include a faction of Solidarity and the International Socialist Organization.

Another form of Marx-inspired leftism that's hard to categorize is Castroism or Guevarism. Guevarists are not so much socialists as left-wing nationalists who emphasize guerilla warfare and Third World liberation movements. Guevarist groups in the U.S. include (to some extent) the Socialist Workers Party and Freedom Road Socialist Organization.

There are several other, minor strains of socialism. One is reactionary socialism. Reactionary socialist movements are generally led by peasants. They aren't interested in progress, but in preserving what once was. The Luddites are an example of a reactionary socialist movement.

Another kind of socialism is utopian socialism. Utopian socialists try to "drop out" of capitalist society and build and alternative within it. Communes are probably the best example of utopian socialist movements.

Recommended further reading (can't remember all the authors' names):

The ABCs of Political Economy
Karl Marx's Theory of Revolution
The Marx-Engels Reader
Marx for Beginners
Lenin for Beginners
Trotsky for Beginners
ParEcon
Anarchism: Arguments For and Against
An Anarchist FAQ: www.anarchistfaq.org

What's my affiliation? I don't like to label myself, but I gravitate towards democratic socialism/reform communism.

The closest thing to a socialist society that's existed, I think, was much of Spain during the Spanish Civil War, and much of Russia during the early years of Lenin.

[zoidberg]

27. So how are investment decisions made?

{edit: thanks for the lengthy response by the way. You provided more information than I was able to digest this late in the day. :) I'll have to look into your suggested reading.)

Let's say that not enough flour is being milled to feed everybody and more machinery is needed to meet the peoples' needs. How is it determined who has to supply the extra capital to increase production? In a capitalist society (even with a safety net of food stamps), the shortage of flour would cause the prices to go up and make flour milling more profitable. Existing companies would either expand production to gain more profit or new companies would go into business. Eventually the demand would be met.

So what is the authority that determines to expand production in your society? The workers council wouldn't necessarily vote to do it because they might not care or might not know about the shortage. Even given perfect knowledge and complete altruism on the part of the council, would they be able to force people to work extra hard to meet the new needs of the people?

[durutti]

30. My Response

Workers' councils would vote in favor of expanding production of flour out of self-interest. If delegates are sent to council and don't act in best interest of the region that needs the flour, they'll be recalled and replaced with someone who will. There would be no incentive for others to vote against this proposal, because there's no profit motive and therefore no competition between regions.

As far as workers being made to work extra hard... well, yes and no. Assuming flour production was no yet automated, workers in that industry would be required to produce more flour. But it wouldn't be such a monotonous task as it is under capitalism, because all the workers would share in the required task, minimizing the time any one person has to spend doing it.

Contrast this with the same situation in a capitalist economy. If this economy was anything like the American one, the flour market would be dominated by a few big companies. They can thus get away with charging unusually high prices for flour, thereby driving real wages down.

[rogerashton]

37. So, Durruti,

(name taken from the Friends of Durruti, I believe? The famous anarchist column in the Spanish Civil War, that would be? Not so?)

Question is, why would not the workers' council for the Flour Workers vote (in their self-interest) to exploit their monopoly power by raising the price of flour if it were in short supply? And to find ways to keep the supply short?

But keep up the good work. You are raising the standards of this discussion.

One more question, Durruti. As an anarcho-syndicalist, do you regard yourself as a democrat? If so, how do you reconcile the traditional anarchist criticism of democracy that says that in a democracy, the majority dominate the minority, whereas anarchists refuse to be dominated by anybody?

Cheers! rogerashton

[htuttle]

39. Speaking as an Anarcho-Syndicalist

Anarcho-syndicalists reconcile the 'conflict' by living in reality, not ideology (at least the ones that actually practice anarcho-syndicalism do). I've been at an anarcho-syndicalist cooperative (which makes it a anarcho-syndicalist syndicate, I guess) for over 10 years. It's how I pay my rent and buy food.

Only the most hardcore anarchists reject what you call being 'dominated' by someone. Anyone who enters into an agreement with anyone else (about anything) is, by that measure, 'dominated' by the person they 'owe' something to due to the agreement.

The coop I'm in runs itself as a representative democracy, with frequent, rotating elections, and a recall mechanism. In addition, there is a 'jury' system of sorts in regards to discipline. The 'executive' branch, while being full members of the 'syndicate', are also hired by the board/workers' council, and can be removed by them at any time. The precise level of involvement by the membership at large varies from time to time -- typically, when times are tough, people get more involved (on a committee level, etc...). When times are good, less people get involved in the actual governance of the syndicate (as opposed to the 'work product' side, where everyone is involved).

The answer to the first part of your question is that the scenario that you describe can and does happen in any cooperative organization at some point in it's history (human nature being what it is). 'Laws' or policies are enacted to handle situations such as this as they are needed.

In addition, ongoing education of syndicate members into how the whole syndicate works, and WHY things are as they are (like sharing the financials, open meetings, etc...) also helps avoid selfishly-motivated situations that are harmful to the syndicate at large as you describe. Incidentally enough, this is true for a democracy as well.

[youngred]

38. That's the problem

There are many many different kinds of socialism (Communism, Stalinism, Maoism, Theravdan (Buddhist), Christian, Utopianism, Leninism, Trotskyism, Anarchism, Fabianism, democratic, and free-market to name a few) that asking different socialists about specifics will get you very different answers.

There are some very basic beliefs held by all. That all people are by natural rights equal, and should have equal treatment and opportunity. They call for doing the best to end social, economic, racial, sexual and all other forms of discrimination. Often what people most think of when they think of socialism is Soviet style, heavily economic socialism (though the Russians never made it to the end of Marx's predicitons). Marx based his ideas on the abuse of the worker he saw in England and Germany during the Industrial Revolution, However, he did not live to see the small steps that the bourgeoisie made to allay the grievances of the workers in the late 19th century. The Capitialists were rather smart in that they sacrificed some profit in order to maintain their lifestyle. Add that to new control techniques (the consumer market, mass media and entertainment etc) and religion was no longer the only opiate of the masses.

I however place the blame on the idea of Revolution and where it first occured.

There is a large division between Evolutionary and Revolutionary Socialists. Marx believed that nothing short of a full revolution would be able to overturn the more poisonious elemnts of Capitalist culture. However, Revolutions have a very low success rate, too often they are started with the best of intentions, but people who seek power for themselves over the goals of the movement (witness Stalin and Mao but also the Jacobins of the French Revolution). For this reason Democratic or Evolutionary socialism has risen to prominance and can be seen in the Scandanavian countries, and Canada, and does manage to function effectively (there is a large amount of debate between corporatist and socialist scholars in Europe as to the effectiveness of either form of government) and well for their citizens. So, those nations are technically socialist and reading up about them would give you one view of what life would be like under socialism.

[DBoon]

40. Oscar Wilde

The Soul Of Man Under Socialism

[cprise]

42. "Why Socialism" by Albert Einstein

...
Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept "society" means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is "society" which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word "society."

It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human being which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.

Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society. Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.
...
http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einst.htm