Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TheRealTP2016 t1_ixn2zai wrote

Reply to comment by Arndt3002 in Hundreds riot at Foxconn iPhone plant over terrible conditions by Doener23

it’s possible to have a market economy where all business is owned by the workers. Socialism is worker ownership of business (not the state!!, that’s one type) As opposed to planned central state socialism
where the state plans everything.

China is a weird mix, it’s doublethink in a way for the ccp, but not oxymoronic for socialism in general because there are numerous types of socialism

0

Arndt3002 t1_ixn6e7i wrote

Edit: TLDR that's not really what socialism means. That's a watered down definition that ignores the key component of socialism: community control of the market (the only means to ensure nonworkers cannot own means of production).

As per the definition of socialism. It is not merely worker ownership, but rather communitarian control. There is a distinction here. The actual definition of community control is directly at odds with a market economy, as it limits individual control or the freedom of the market.

Whereas certain socialist critiques of capitalism (in the sense of an ownership class) are definitely as you describe (as being about worker ownership of business), that is not the sole defining feature of socialism. In that case, you could just have workers own the dominant share in a company and it would be socialist. This is not the case as the word term is generally used. Rather, the primary orientation of socialism is based on community determination and control of the means of production.

This is what makes it fundamentally opposed to the concept or ideology of free markets, wherein individuals have complete autonomy from community control and market forces provide incentives which optimize productivity while maintaining individual freedom from external control.

Here are some common definitions to support how this idea of community control is central to socialism. I do not mean these as a be all end all, but more of as an illustrative point. Socialism is centrally defined by communitarian control, in opposition to a free market.

Oxford English: "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

Webster: "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"

Brittanica: "socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources."

Stanford encyclopedia: "In the classical, Marxist definition (G.A. Cohen 2000a: ch.3; Fraser 2014: 57–9), capitalism involves certain relations of production. These comprise certain forms of control over the productive forces—the labor power that workers deploy in production and the means of production such as natural resources, tools, and spaces they employ to yield goods and services—and certain social patterns of economic interaction that typically correlate with that control."

2

TheRealTP2016 t1_ixn7nyo wrote

That all makes sense, but I’m missing how that fits in with an ideology like anarchist market socialism. Are you saying the existence of a market, even if fully owned by workers, isn’t truly socialist?

2

Arndt3002 t1_ixni4sx wrote

TLDR: it is not socialist as it leaves the possibility for a capitalist system to exist in the community. That is, unless every single person refuses to enter into a contract where they work without the means of production (an untenable assumption unless you assume everyone will inherently and always make altruistic choices).

An anarchist market socialism is inherently impossible, due to the fact that it requires every single individual from making a very natural type of agreement, and such complete individual consent without community control is impossible.

In an anarchist market system, one is free to own whatever one is able without an overarching community or government to override an individual's decision. This may be "socialist" insofar as people collaborate to determine how they act in the market.

However, in order to be truly an anarchist market economy, one must be able to own what one wants. Under that type of system, it is an immediate and natural consequence that someone would, say, pay for someone to help them with a tool they own or manage something they own. Unless the community forces them to stop (which would no longer be anarchist), they have entered under an agreement where the owner of the means of production is not the worker, which is inherently not socialistic.

Further, the fact that this can occur makes the system inherently incompatible with socialism. In one instance you can choose to deny the core tenet of socialism, that the community can override an individual's market decision to work without ownership of the means of production. Alternatively, you can choose to deny a core tenet of anarchist market economies, that a collective cannot override an individual's market decisions.

The problem with your argument is that you are only considering particular individuals decisions, rather than the rules and principles which allow those conditions to be general. A system that has a company owned by workers is not in a socialist system if another company is owned by a capitalist. What makes it socialism (as I describe before) is the community overriding the ability to even have a company where the workers do not own the means of production.

The only way this is viable is if every single member of the society refuses to participate in that sort of agreement, completely without collective overruling. However, this is inherently untenable as an ideology for any large scales, as that sort of active consent needs to occur completely voluntarily for every individual. If we were capable of making such unanimous individual decisions, people wouldn't do bad things to eachother anyways.

2

TheRealTP2016 t1_ixnil4l wrote

I’ll keep this in mind and try to digest it.

I take it you’re a Leninist? or what’s your perspective? Just so I can learn, not trying to discredit you

2

Arndt3002 t1_ixnqejf wrote

I self-describe as more of a social democrat or sometimes called "democratic capitalist" (as in the free market Michael Novak sense, not the "pro-landlord" sense which the word often signifies in socialist analysis). I used to be more of a democratic socialist, but my view has changed a bit over time.

I used to support more government ownership and control (to be clear I still think this for medicine, utilities, academic research, etc. as the community decides); however, I currently think that the best way to stop exploitative capitalism is a strong regulative framework, rather than outright government or community control of most enterprise. I think that our current problems are more the failing of the government than it is the market itself, as our system does more to advantage massive corporations than it does to regulate them. I think it's more a problem of failed community regulation rather than a fundamental problem of needing community ownership.

My view isn't too different from democratic socialism practically, but I think the framework of fundamentally free markets with thorough community regulation preserves individual rights better than a fundamentally community controlled economy.

Often, I think many self-proclaimed "democratic socialists" fall under this general train of thought. However, I think that sweeping my view under the canopy of "socialism" waters down the rich history of genuinely socialist critique, which is fundamentally founded on community control of the means of production. Sorry for the essays, lol, but I like sharing my thoughts.

Note: I disagree with the rather eurocentric view of Novak (and many will naturally disagree with him due to his religious views), but his work "the spirit of democratic capitalism" played a role in refining my stance toward capitalism. I would recommend it as a way to see why people seem to support capitalism as an idea, despite the ways in which it has been used to exploit people. It certainly has helped me argue with conservatives where I'm from in the Midwest, and convince them that leftist "communist" policies are actually the best way for them to serve their own interests.

2

TheRealTP2016 t1_ixnr7im wrote

That’s a very unique and in depth view. Thanks for sharing. I think overall we are more aligned than in contrast.

I’m not sure what else I can say right now besides that, but thanks for responding. if I’m less brain dead later, I’ll dig deeper into the details and reply but currently I’m unable.

You have a totally fair critique

2