Ask the Socialist candidate for the European Parliament election

[Shodan]

@psychonaut

You don’t. However, how you go about acquiring status depends on the social environment you find yourself in. In a society where material possessions have no value, there is no status to be gained by flaunting or hoarding them.

I am guessing that, since there is no society where material possessions have no value, you can’t produce a cite for this.

Sure. I go and get another car from the store for my own use. If there aren’t any, that’s a signal that the community may need to place an order for more of them.
I very much doubt that the common store would stock automatic weapons, or that such weapons would even be produced in socialism. I don’t know too much about firearms, so correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t certain types of them (including handguns and automatic weapons) designed solely for killing humans (as opposed to hunting animals)? If that’s true, there wouldn’t be any point in manufacturing them or even keeping existing ones around.

And here, of course, you have taken the first step back to archism.

Someone apparently decides what is an appropriate request, and what is not. That person, whether you admit it or not, is in charge.

Or put it this way - we have just established the socialist utopia. I and my friends run over to the Colt factory. We find it deeply fulfilling to manufacture automatic weapons. You made the claim that people get to choose what they work on. Is that the case?

Or is it “meet the new boss, same as the old boss” the way it is now for “socialist” societies?

Regards,
Shodan

[Olentzero]

@Dead_Badger

Why is the planet necessarily more self-sufficient a closed system than a single country?

Well, we have managed to spread across the planet as a species and sustain (more or less) a population now totalling several billion, for one thing. More careful management of resources (again with the aim of meeting human need, not turning a profit) should allow for increases in that capacity.

@Bryan_Ekers

So not only does the whole world have to be socialist, it has to become socialist at the same time, lest some citizen’s needs go unmet.

It should be clear to the careful reader from the post to which I referred begbert that I argue it cannot also be built in one day, just as I argue it can’t be built in one country.

[psychonaut]

@Lantern

Psychonaut,
Sure there are a few Marxist economists but they are a very small minority in the profession especially in the best universities. And I would bet most Marxist economists would support some kind of central planning. The number of economists who would support your brand of socialism without central authority or even a medium of exchange would be vanishingly few if any. Could you point to some eminent economists who supports socialism as defined by your party?

Very few, yes, but not zero. Two that come to mind are the aforementioned Binay Sarkar of the University of Burdwan, and Edgar Hardcastle. The latter is listed among notable Marxian economists and theorists at the Marxists Internet Archive (which is in no way affiliated with the SPGB).

[Sarahfeena]

@psychonaut

In socialism, the vast majority would be “forcing” a minority of pro-capitalist dissenters into the collective only in the same sense that today a small minority of pro-socialist dissenters are “forced” into living under capitalism. Sorry, but there’s only one Earth, and we’re going to have to decide how to share it and its resources democratically.

I won’t argue with you over whether the pro-capitalist dissenters will be a “vast” minority or even a minority at all, but your admission that there will be at least some is an admission that Socialism won’t work without coercion. Your point that currently Socialists are coerced to submit to Capitalism may be true, but you have just lost your argument that Socialism will be any better in this regard.

[begbert2]

@Olentzero

Already covered that issue here, begbert.

Ah, thanks. I figured that it had been addressed somewhere - it almost had to be.

Reading between the lines there (though not very deeply), it appears that there will have to be some form of government or overriding authority; otherwise it would be impossible to enforce the “don’t work, don’t eat” rule. Somebody has to track who has worked; somebody has to decide who eats. Presumably of course, this system of tracking and allocation will be run by those Idealists who took over. And wow, isn’t it a good thing that they’re all genuine Idealists! Because if, say, an Imperialist or Fascist slipped into their ranks and worked to take over, we’d all be screwed.

Fortunately we can be quite confident that would never happen, because it’s not like a poorly self-regulated system based on trust and the assumption of human goodwill would ever appear to be an attractive vehicle for snatching power. Right?

But anyway, looking at “socalism v1.0”…that’s just de-motivated capitalism without the price controls, isn’t it? People have to go to work and “earn a wage”, but instead of there being even a hint of reward for working more efficiently, instead sloth is rewarded. (More specifically, excellence beyond the minimum not to be ejected from the feed lines is unincentivized, and sloth is its own reward.) Hmm, I wonder if just hypothetically this could result in a massive slowdown of the economy and a dramatic reduction in workforce motivation resulting in economic and maintenence shortfalls?

Naah, I’m sure that’s just my imagination. It’d never happen.
I also don’t get why the whole world has to be socialized (at once, no less!) for it to work. Sure, it’s a convenient way to True Scotsman away all the failed examples, but I just don’t see how things will be different when theh whole world does it. Couldn’t any large area with enough resources in it to be moderately self-sufficient (like, say, Russia) be socialist all on its own self? (If you’ve already explained this, a link will do.)
On a separate note, if socialism happens, I personally will go to work, sit in my chair, and do the least and worst job possible. Then I will go home and put in requisitions for ferrarris and movies and tvs and computers and everything else I can think of. Because, for me, wealth isn’t a status symbol, and possessions aren’t either. I don’t collect stuff to show it off - hardly anybody sees my stuff. No, I collect stuff because I want it. I want to own it. I want to use it. I want to admire it. I want to run my fingers along the shelves full of it and pick it up and fiddle with it. Mine! My preciousssesss…

So yeah. Ten people sharing a car get to order another one? Screw that, I’m ordering one even if there are nine cars to the ten of us. I want my own.

Fortunately I’m the only person like me in the whole world, and nobody else owns things because they actually want them, but instead because their stuff is a status symbol. Because if people like me existed, this socialism stuff would never work.

[jayjay]

@Sarahfeena

Your point that currently Socialists are coerced to submit to Capitalism may be true, but you have just lost your argument that Socialism will be any better in this regard.

But they have good intentions!

Wait…where’s this road go and what that it’s paved with?

[An_Gadai]

What do you think of Joe Higgins’ election as an MEP?

[Dead_Badger]

@Olentzero

Well, we have managed to spread across the planet as a species and sustain (more or less) a population now totalling several billion, for one thing. More careful management of resources (again with the aim of meeting human need, not turning a profit) should allow for increases in that capacity.

This does not address your claim that a planet is intrinsically self-sufficient, while a single country is not. Nor, even if we accept the claim (which I don’t), does it fully explain the existence of black markets in a society in which value has no meaning.

It should be perfectly possible for a socialist state to support a certain level of population, without them desiring all of those appropriatively created fripperies and status symbols of the rest of the world. You’ve abolished price, remember? People can have no sense of value any more. So what’s making them want all those iniquitous goods? And why do they even trade the goods their own country produces? Could it be that in fact, a command economy isn’t very good at assessing people’s wants and needs?

[psychonaut]

@Sarahfeena

I won’t argue with you over whether the pro-capitalist dissenters will be a “vast” minority or even a minority at all, but your admission that there will be at least some is an admission that Socialism won’t work without coercion. Your point that currently Socialists are coerced to submit to Capitalism may be true, but you have just lost your argument that Socialism will be any better in this regard.

I expect the number of people in a socialist society who want to go back to capitalism will be similar to the number of people in today’s capitalist society who want to go back to feudalism.

[Sarahfeena]

@psychonaut

I expect the number of people in a socialist society who want to go back to capitalism will be similar to the number of people in today’s capitalist society who want to go back to feudalism.

First, you already acknowledged that there will be some. What do you propose to do about those people? How will they be coerced into participating? And what if your expectation is wrong in regards to the # of dissenters? There are currently 6+ billion people on the planet…by the time people start coming around to your brand of Socialism there might be 10 billion or very many more. Even 1% of that is a whole big bunch of people. What are you going to do about those folks? Will they be allowed to have a little pocket of Capitalism, they way Communists can have little pockets of Communism today? And what will you do if people do decide that they like the lifestyles of those in that little Capitalist corner of the world, and they want to join it? And it keeps getting bigger and bigger? How does your theory deal with that possibility?

[begbert2]

@psychonaut

I expect the number of people in a socialist society who want to go back to capitalism will be similar to the number of people in today’s capitalist society who want to go back to feudalism.

You’re right - if I can leech the socialist system to the detriment of society, I’d much prefer it to capitalism, where I can only leech to the degree I manage to convince people to give me money. But if (when?) the socialist society fails to supply me with the hookers-n-blow vouchers that I have become accostomed to, I will switch to a system that still offers them in a new york minute.

Of course, I’m a lower-middle class person at the moment, so I have higher expectations of my society than, say, a guy living on the street. So those folks will join you faster and stay with you longer than me, and similarly, I’ll join you faster and stay with you longer than than somebody who has accumulated a larger buffer of savings and security that you aim to strip away. But if you promise diamonds and hand out coal (due to my laziness at the diamond factory), everyone will abandon you and the former bums are the only people you’ll keep.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Olentzero

It should be clear to the careful reader from the post to which I referred begbert that I argue it cannot also be built in one day, just as I argue it can’t be built in one country.

What timeframe did you have in mind, then? How long could, for example, a socialist Europe last while capitalist North America exists? By your argument, this can’t be a permanent state - either North America will have to convert to socialism or socialist Europe will fail. How long does North America have to resist before succumbing or conquering?

[Olentzero]

@Bryan_Ekers

What timeframe did you have in mind, then?

I don’t. How long it takes for the revolution to spread depends on how the working class organizes around the world and what actions they take, not on socialists planning the whole thing out by themselves. Speculating who’ll go first and how long it’ll take the rest to follow is useless. You are correct, however, in interpreting my argument - the building of socialism and the continued existence of capitalism are incompatible.

[Dead_Badger]

@Olentzero

You are correct, however, in interpreting my argument - the building of socialism and the continued existence of capitalism are incompatible.

Why?

[Olentzero]

Ultimately it comes down to different bases of social power and differing aims. The socialist project is committed to ending the rule of capitalism for social and political reasons like economic exploitation, war, and racism (none of which, socialists argue, are a product solely of capitalism but are made much worse by it). The rulers of capitalist society, naturally, want to prevent that from happening, which means in a world divided into those two societies each will be committed to undermining the other. No permanent balance can be struck.

[Shodan]

@Olentzero

It should be clear to the careful reader from the post to which I referred begbert that I argue it cannot also be built in one day, just as I argue it can’t be built in one country.

Would you care to address the paradox?

If socialism cannot be built in a day, there will be some period of time where socialism exists in one, or a few, countries, and not in others. Therefore, socialism, which has to implemented all at once to be successful, cannot be successful.

The fact that there will be a world divided into those two societies means that socialism cannot be implemented - the presence of non-socialist societies prevents it.

Regards,
Shodan

[Dead_Badger]

@Olentzero

Ultimately it comes down to different bases of social power and differing aims. The socialist project is committed to ending the rule of capitalism for social and political reasons like economic exploitation, war, and racism (none of which, socialists argue, are a product solely of capitalism but are made much worse by it). The rulers of capitalist society, naturally, want to prevent that from happening, which means in a world divided into those two societies each will be committed to undermining the other. No permanent balance can be struck.

Mutual antagonism isn’t the idea you were advancing, though; you seemed to say that it’s an intrinsic property of socialism that controlling the entire planet is a pre-requisite. Capitalists might think it would be better if socialist nations embraced free trade, property ownership and personal freedom, but this doesn’t stop them continuing perfectly happily while those socialist countries make their own mistakes.

By contrast, you seem convinced that true socialism is impossible while capitalism still exists in any form. No-one argues that capitalism can not exist while there remains a single socialist country, so why are you arguing that the obverse is true? Remember, you said that it’s the corrupting influence of capitalism’s mere existence that causes things like black markets in socialist countries. Can you explain why?

[psychonaut]

@alexandra

what do you think of Arthur Scargill’s Socialist Labour Party?

Well, let’s examine their manifesto and constitution in their own words:

@SLP Manifesto

The policies outlined in this Manifesto deal with the injustices and inequalities that people currently face in our society. They are not, and cannot be, a long-term or permanent solution to a system where a small section of society feeds off the majority - inevitably creating crisis after crisis with devastating effect on human lives.

The solution lies in abolishing capitalism and replacing it with a Socialist system whose institutions represent the people as a whole, and which are democratically controlled by and accountable to them.

So far so good! Let’s continue…

@SLP Manifesto

We want to secure for the people a full return of all the wealth generated by Britain’s industries and services on the basis of common and social ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange.

Uh-oh… here we have a problem. While we agree that the means of production and distribution should be democratically owned and controlled, we’re not so hot on the idea of “means of exchange”. This refers to the money system, which we believe has no place in a socialist society. That the SLP believes that money will exist in socialism is made clear in other writings of theirs, most importantly their Constitution, which includes the following as one of the Party’s goals:

@SLP Constitution

To establish that occupational pension funds are controlled by employees who contribute and beneficiaries who benefit from them.

The SLP’s manifesto contains a full slate of political reforms which have nothing to do with socialism. Like other parties, they want to be put in charge of government so that they can tweak the budget, introduce new legislation or abolish existing laws, and redraw the borders of the UK. For example, they claim they want to cut military weapons spending by two thirds. If they want socialism, why not cut it out altogether? What are they going to with bombs and tanks in their socialist society? They also want a united Ireland. Again, it’s hard to see how this advances the cause of socialism, even as they define it.

In short, the SLP’s reformist policies, while many of them may be well-intentioned, are misguided, and are certainly not going to bring about socialism.

[jayjay]

@psychonaut

In short, the SLP’s reformist policies, while many of them may be well-intentioned, are misguided, and are certainly not going to bring about socialism.

Well, to be fair, neither have you actually outlined the method by which you expect to bring about your own form of socialism. At least the SLP has definite goals and plans for accomplishing them. Everything that you have talked about in this thread is pie-in-the-sky, sometime-in-the-future, when-everyone-wakes-up handwaving.

How are you going to do it? That’s the one thing I want to know. What are your party’s plans for bringing about this bloodless social revolution worldwide?

[psychonaut]

@begbert2

Could not a kibbutz be a colony that is orchestrated to operate on the socialist system of society? That’s what sounds like it is to me based on what’s posted here. And I don’t see why their insular nature would be relevent to what system of social organization they use.

A kibbutz is not socialist simply by definition (not by ours, anyway); we define it as a global system of society. Of course there are still many aspects of a kibbutz that are socialist in nature; most notably, the means of production are owned and controlled in common. However, a kibbutz cannot be completely self-sufficient—at least, not if you want to avail yourself of the fruits of modern technology. A kibbutz may be able to grow its own food and produce some of its own agricultural goods, but it won’t be able to make from scratch its own medicines or tools or machinery. It will either have to do without them (in which case, the quality of life will drop dramatically), or else it will have to trade with the outside capitalist world for the goods they need and/or the raw materials to produce them. For this reason most kibbutzim end up being just another form of jointly-owned capitalist enterprise, with some of them turning huge profits and others losing so much that the inhabitants have to seek employment off the kibbutz.