Need some help with your definitions of Socialism - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14536385
I am unclear as to precisely what separates out "Socialism" from either "Communism" or "Liberalism". Obviously one could say "Liberalism" has nothing to do with economics but the way most people use "Liberal" (in the USA) definitely includes a preference for government regulation/involvement with businesses as well as welfare state type "entitlements". And if I remember my history right, "Communism" is just a name people made up when the USSR got started, but before then the Bolsheviks were basically considered to simply be "Socialists". So what exactly does distinguish Socialism from Communism? To me it sort of feels almost like a pure branding exercise because "Communism" has such intensely negative connotations for most people in this day and age. (Then again so does "Socialism" at least in the USA)
#14536415
UnusuallyUsual wrote:I am unclear as to precisely what separates out "Socialism" from either "Communism" or "Liberalism". Obviously one could say "Liberalism" has nothing to do with economics but the way most people use "Liberal" (in the USA) definitely includes a preference for government regulation/involvement with businesses as well as welfare state type "entitlements".


Liberalism, as an ideology, is very broad and includes both the US Republican and Democratic parties. It is based on a foundation of individual rights, intellectual freedom and respect for private property. That last one is what most clearly distinguishes it from socialism and communism. Theories do exist, however, which attempt to reconcile one with the other.

And if I remember my history right, "Communism" is just a name people made up when the USSR got started, but before then the Bolsheviks were basically considered to simply be "Socialists".


Marx and Engels published the "Communist Manifesto" in 1848. The USSR was established in 1922.

So what exactly does distinguish Socialism from Communism? To me it sort of feels almost like a pure branding exercise because "Communism" has such intensely negative connotations for most people in this day and age. (Then again so does "Socialism" at least in the USA)


The clearest point of distinction comes between those who are in favour of reform (socialists) and those who are in favour of revolution (communists). Of course, there's a lot of crossover but that's not really the point, is it? These sub-fora don't exist to set clear lines of demarcation. It's entirely possible to consider yourself a socialist and a communist, or a conservative and a liberal and so on and so forth.
#14536424
Cromwell wrote:Liberalism, as an ideology, is very broad and includes both the US Republican and Democratic parties. It is based on a foundation of individual rights, intellectual freedom and respect for private property. That last one is what most clearly distinguishes it from socialism and communism. Theories do exist, however, which attempt to reconcile one with the other.

Marx and Engels published the "Communist Manifesto" in 1848. The USSR was established in 1922.

The clearest point of distinction comes between those who are in favour of reform (socialists) and those who are in favour of revolution (communists). Of course, there's a lot of crossover but that's not really the point, is it? These sub-fora don't exist to set clear lines of demarcation. It's entirely possible to consider yourself a socialist and a communist, or a conservative and a liberal and so on and so forth.


Regarding your point about Communist Manifesto in 1848-

Yeah but weren't the Bolsheviks part of the "Socialist International"? Wasn't their party's name "Social Democratic"? I mean, I'm fairly certain it was an innovation for them to switch from the "socialist" title to "communist" and they did so specifically as a really branding exercise during the USSR's formation to emphasize how much more extreme they were going to be.

Individual rights, intellectual freedom, respect for private property = Liberalism. Ok. Well yes clearly the last part is in flagrant disagreement with both Socialism and Communism (assuming they are even different from each other). But what about the first two parts? Would you say either Socialism or Communism is compatible with "individual rights" and "intellectual freedom" ( I would love to go into more detail about both of those phrases too since they are pretty broad)?

"Reform" vs. "Revolution". Yes that makes sense but that is a pure question of method and not goals right? So would you say there is no essential departure in terms of end-state purposes between Socialism and Communism?
#14536444
UnusuallyUsual wrote:Regarding your point about Communist Manifesto in 1848-

Yeah but weren't the Bolsheviks part of the "Socialist International"? Wasn't their party's name "Social Democratic"? I mean, I'm fairly certain it was an innovation for them to switch from the "socialist" title to "communist" and they did so specifically as a really branding exercise during the USSR's formation to emphasize how much more extreme they were going to be.


There are two points here. The difference between socialism and communism as forms of political economy and as forms of ideology. Those who were/are communists by ideology, even within the Soviet Union, would not claim that they were practising communism in terms of political economy.

So, ideological distinctions are matters of means, rather than ends. For example, the Gang of Four left the Labour Party and established the Social Democratic Party; this was because they considered the former to be shifting too far to the left. However, in that case, the Social Democrats were, actually, more accepting of Thatcher's reforms (which were intended to transition Britain away from its, then, political economy; which was, arguably, a form of social democracy).

So, yes, a lot of the time (but not always) what distinguishes a social democratic from a socialist and, in turn, distinguishes a socialist from a communist is how far they're willing to go in order to realise their ideological objectives.

Individual rights, intellectual freedom, respect for private property = Liberalism. Ok. Well yes clearly the last part is in flagrant disagreement with both Socialism and Communism (assuming they are even different from each other). But what about the first two parts? Would you say either Socialism or Communism is compatible with "individual rights" and "intellectual freedom" ( I would love to go into more detail about both of those phrases too since they are pretty broad)?


Left-libertarianism (which can be expressed by forms of socialism and of communism) certainly is compatible with those precepts. Marxism-Leninism (or Stalinism, depending on your perspective) is much less so, especially the latter; dissent is rarely tolerated by those states which follow variants of Marxism-Leninism and their ideologues in the West are notorious for their "No Platform" policies and general contempt for liberal contrivances such as "freedom of speech" or "freedom of expression".

"Reform" vs. "Revolution". Yes that makes sense but that is a pure question of method and not goals right? So would you say there is no essential departure in terms of end-state purposes between Socialism and Communism?


If only it were that simple. For Marxian socialists/communists, no, there are no differences between "end-state purposes". The trouble is, method is a key part of ideological analysis; a man who says that "the system can be reformed" sees the world entirely differently to a man who says "political power flows from the barrel of a gun", even if they both have the same end-goal.

And that doesn't even begin to tackle the subject of competing tendencies within socialism.
#14536450
Liberalism

The hegemonic ideology of our time, can be simply defined in three parts, social liberalism (individual liberty, negative rights, permissive society), political liberalism (representative democracy, the rule of law, the state system) and economic liberalism (private property, capitalism, free markets).

Socialism / communism

The exact meanings of these terms are contested, for me true socialists are communists, however it has been used to describe social democrats (who are in fact liberals) and nationalists,

However for me socialism/communism should include:

Collective solidarity,
positive rights,
voluntary association,
participatory democracy,
a commitment to the abolition of states,
personal and communal property,
#14536453
Goldberk wrote:Liberalism

The hegemonic ideology of our time, can be simply defined in three parts, social liberalism (individual liberty, negative rights, permissive society), political liberalism (representative democracy, the rule of law, the state system) and economic liberalism (private property, capitalism, free markets).

Socialism / communism

The exact meanings of these terms are contested, for me true socialists are communists, however it has been used to describe social democrats (who are in fact liberals) and nationalists,

However for me socialism/communism should include:

Collective solidarity,
positive rights,
voluntary association,
participatory democracy,
a commitment to the abolition of states,
personal and communal property,


I would say of your list of qualities ascribed to Socialism/Communism, "voluntary association" and "participatory democracy" are most easily merged within the Liberal mentality, no?

Obviously Positive Rights and Communal Property starts to cause conflicts (with those individuals unwilling to provide for others, who must then be forced to).

Although when you say "Personal *and* Communal Property" isn't that already part of the Liberal mindset as well? I don't see anything inherently unliberal about there existing both forms of property, in fact in the real world they both DO exist (although at least in the USA the communal type is under increasing assault).

As far as "A commitment to the abolition of states" again I think that depends on time frame more than anything as to whether or not it could be said to be compatible broadly speaking with Liberalism.
#14536458
Voluntary association

Can I voluntarily disassociate myself from a liberal state, it's laws and institutions? Well no, I am involuntarily bound to it.

Participatory democracy

Do I have an equal right and opportunity to engage with and influence the political institutions of a liberal state, compared to all other citizens? No, engagement and influence depends on your status/wealth within a liberal society, and your 'representatives' wield more power than you.

Liberalism's view on personal and communal property

Private property is incompatible with the above, as it is property that a not necessarily for your personal use but remains for your personal benefit,
#14536473
Goldberk wrote:However for me socialism/communism should include:

Collective solidarity,
positive rights,
voluntary association,
participatory democracy,
a commitment to the abolition of states,
personal and communal property,


So as to purposefully exclude state socialists? What would you declare them to be? Fascists? Liberals?

I really don't see how socialism needs much more than a commitment to public ownership of the means of production and the elimination of class distinctions.
#14536504
The term Socialism has been used in different way and has been sometime been interchangeable with Communism. Even Communism wasn't a term invented by Marx, so it can also have contested meanings. Marx himself used different terms at different times with out ever clearly de-marking his terms or defining the relationships between them. Social Democracy it should be noted was in its origin a radical term. It implied that the lower classes should not merely be content with political democracy but should have a democratic control over the means of production. The Bolsheviks were part of the Russian Social Democratic and Labour Party. Bolshevik just meaning of the majority. It was only after the 1917 Revolution that the Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist party and encouraged the left to split from the socialist parties internationally.
#14660759
Cromwell wrote:I am unclear as to precisely what separates out "Socialism" from either "Communism" or "Liberalism".


Here is the absolute best brief historical summary and analysis of socialism that I have ever found: http://rdwolff.com/content/socialism-me ... -employees

Socialism is still under development. Experimentation has revealed some good practices and some bad, dead-end ones.
#14660774
Yeah but weren't the Bolsheviks part of the "Socialist International"? Wasn't their party's name "Social Democratic"? I mean, I'm fairly certain it was an innovation for them to switch from the "socialist" title to "communist" and they did so specifically as a really branding exercise during the USSR's formation to emphasize how much more extreme they were going to be.
The split between the Social Democrats and Socialists/Communists can be traced back to the German Revolution after WW1. The Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (which had been founded as the Sozialistische Arbeiterpartei Deutschlands) seized power in revolution, but failed to implement a revolutionary program the way the Russian Bolsheviks did. They ruled through parliamentary means and implemented a modest social welfare agenda, while actively suppressing more Left elements.

Now, the difference between Social Democrats and Socialists solidified decades later. The general idea is that Social Democrats see the building and maintenance of a European-style welfare state as an acceptable end-goal for socialism. Socialists do not. Some Socialists are reformists, and see European-style reforms as a way to move towards worker control of the means of production. This distinction is made more complicated by the fact that many nominally Socialist parties are controlled by Social Democrats, and many Social Democrats in countries without strong Socialist traditions don't seem to understand the difference between the two (for example, Bernie Sanders calling himself a Democratic Socialist).
#14660860
And this is why we have the term Leftists. It is easier if you think of it as a cladogram or scale or something to begin with. Generally between liberals, socialists, and communists, similar ideals are wanted, but the extent of them is more limited the more you come to the right. That is the basis of the difference. Of course there are more subtle differences, but those are only important if you deem them so.
#14661056
Goldberk wrote:However for me socialism/communism should include:

Collective solidarity,

Whatever that might be...
positive rights,

I.e., in fact, violation of rights to extend privileges to favored interests. What a shocker.
voluntary association,

Society can't function unless the anti-social can be forcibly -- i.e., involuntarily -- prevented from disrupting its function.
participatory democracy,

And if the people don't want to vote for your plan...?
a commitment to the abolition of states,

I.e., anarchism. Sorry, but in English we use different words for different concepts in order to communicate clearly and honestly.
personal and communal property,

In what? Why?

AFAICT, that is all just arrant question begging.
#14661150
Truth To Power wrote: No, Wolff's nonsense is false and dishonest.

I don't see any analysis or even developed opinions.

And since he got his degrees from Harvard, Princeton, and Yale, at this point I'll consider him smarter and more informed than you. His life-long devotion to advocacy for the working class is worth plenty too.
#14661412
Truth To Power wrote: No, Wolff's nonsense is false and dishonest.

Davea8 wrote:I don't see any analysis or even developed opinions.



"With confidence waning in whether modern private capitalism can truly be fixed, the debate shifts to a choice between two systemic alternatives that we must learn to keep straight: state capitalism and socialism."

Two errors here: "state capitalism" is an oxymoron, as capitalism is defined as private ownership of the means of production; and a blatant false dichotomy fallacy. Capitalism and socialism are both based on the same false assumption: that there is no crucial difference between land and capital. Socialists pretend capital is land to justify stealing capital, capitalists pretend land is capital to justify stealing land. But land is not capital any more than capital is land. So there is at least one additional systemic alternative to Wolff's false dichotomy: a system that respects the facts of objective physical reality, and treats land and capital according to their distinct character.

That's just one sentence.

"State capitalism exists when the state apparatus - rather than a group of private citizens - positions state officials to function as capitalist employers. Thus, under state capitalism it is state officials placed in charge of enterprises who hire employees, organize and supervise their activities within enterprises, sell the resulting outputs (goods or services), receive the sales revenues and thus realize any profits. State officials occupy the key directorial positions within such state capitalist enterprises."

This is just a dishonest way of blaming capitalism for the evils and failures of socialism by calling socialism, "state capitalism." It's just a stupid lie.

"An enterprise only qualifies as "socialist" once the distinction between employers and employees within it has been abolished."

So only self-employment counts as "socialist." What nonsense.

"So long as employers, private or state, hire laborers to produce commodities and generate profits that the employers exclusively receive, the economy has a capitalist structure. So long as it is exclusively the employers (whether private, state or hybrid; whether more or less regulated) who decide how to use those profits, it is a capitalist structure."

Employees already get, and decide how to use, their rightful share of the profits of production: their wages. All wages in excess of the amount the employee could obtain without using any capital provided by an employer are profits of the enterprise's production distributed to employees.

"An enterprise only qualifies as "socialist" once the distinction between employers and employees within it has been abolished."

So only self-employment is socialist.

"When workers collectively and democratically produce, receive and distribute the profits their labor generates, the enterprise becomes socialist."

What about the profits the capital contributed by the employer generates -- i.e., the difference between actual production and the amount the same workers would produce with the same time and effort, but without the capital contribution of the employer?

<crickets>

The rest of Wolff's article is mostly delusional speculation, and not worth readers' attention.
And since he got his degrees from Harvard, Princeton, and Yale, at this point I'll consider him smarter and more informed than you.

He might be smarter in the IQ sense (unlikely), and he might be better informed in the sense of having more knowledge of the relevant theory, history and scholarship; but he does not understand the subject. I do.
His life-long devotion to advocacy for the working class is worth plenty too.

Not when that advocacy is misguided, and focuses not on a struggle for liberty, justice, and truth, but only on offsetting privilege by securing countervailing privileges.
#14663307
Truth To Power wrote: "With confidence waning in whether modern private capitalism can truly be fixed, the debate shifts to a choice between two systemic alternatives that we must learn to keep straight: state capitalism and socialism."

Two errors here: "state capitalism" is an oxymoron, as capitalism is defined as private ownership of the means of production; and a blatant false dichotomy fallacy.

Ok, so you're stuck on dictionary definitions and don't recognize culturally and historically inflicted variations on the theme of capitalism. For you, it has to be "by the book" or it doesn't exist. That leaves you out of the conversation from the outset.


Capitalism and socialism are both based on the same false assumption: that there is no crucial difference between land and capital.

There you have it again. You don't see connections between events and the contexts in which they are applied.

"State capitalism exists when the state apparatus - rather than a group of private citizens - positions state officials to function as capitalist employers. Thus, under state capitalism it is state officials placed in charge of enterprises who hire employees, organize and supervise their activities within enterprises, sell the resulting outputs (goods or services), receive the sales revenues and thus realize any profits. State officials occupy the key directorial positions within such state capitalist enterprises."

This is just a dishonest way of blaming capitalism for the evils and failures of socialism by calling socialism, "state capitalism." It's just a stupid lie.

Either you fail to grasp what socialism is, or you are intentionally trying to mislead and confuse. Whichever it is, it isn't important to me; the result is the same. Socialism is a relationship between the employer and the employed which is fundamentally different from that of capitalism. In socialism, employer and employed are one and the same. If that is not the prevailing condition, you aren't looking at socialism. And state capitalism, which Marx and Engels warned against, is not socialism. Try again.


"An enterprise only qualifies as "socialist" once the distinction between employers and employees within it has been abolished."
So only self-employment counts as "socialist." What nonsense.

You may be the expert here but I think readers can figure this out easily enough.

"So long as employers, private or state, hire laborers to produce commodities and generate profits that the employers exclusively receive, the economy has a capitalist structure. So long as it is exclusively the employers (whether private, state or hybrid; whether more or less regulated) who decide how to use those profits, it is a capitalist structure."
Employees already get, and decide how to use, their rightful share of the profits of production: their wages. All wages in excess of the amount the employee could obtain without using any capital provided by an employer are profits of the enterprise's production distributed to employees.

Labor costs are a cost of doing business and accounted for prior to calculating profits. You are echoing the capitalist's calculation that reduction of labor costs can result in an increase in profits. That's why 60,000 companies have left the U.S. and moved overseas. You are merely asserting the capitalist's position.

"An enterprise only qualifies as "socialist" once the distinction between employers and employees within it has been abolished."
So only self-employment is socialist.

You already tried that one.

"When workers collectively and democratically produce, receive and distribute the profits their labor generates, the enterprise becomes socialist."
What about the profits the capital contributed by the employer generates -- i.e., the difference between actual production and the amount the same workers would produce with the same time and effort, but without the capital contribution of the employer?

That Wolff quote is obviously about socialism. Your question is obviously about capitalism. You're trying to mix the two.

The rest of Wolff's article is mostly delusional speculation, and not worth readers' attention.

Then you wouldn't be interested in discussing them. The remainder of your own comments were embarrassing cases of posturing and self-promotion. You're clearly pro-capitalist, which means your views on socialism would not be expected to be objective or useful to anyone but another capitalist.
#14663462
Truth To Power wrote: "With confidence waning in whether modern private capitalism can truly be fixed, the debate shifts to a choice between two systemic alternatives that we must learn to keep straight: state capitalism and socialism."

Two errors here: "state capitalism" is an oxymoron, as capitalism is defined as private ownership of the means of production; and a blatant false dichotomy fallacy.

Davea8 wrote:Ok, so you're stuck on dictionary definitions

Because I value accurate and honest communication.
and don't recognize culturally and historically inflicted variations on the theme of capitalism.

Huh?? What on earth do you incorrectly imagine you think you might be talking about?
For you, it has to be "by the book" or it doesn't exist.

I just like to know what I am talking about. You don't. Fine.
That leaves you out of the conversation from the outset.

I don't have the time, energy, or patience for a "conversation" that consists of deliberately misusing words for propaganda purposes.
Capitalism and socialism are both based on the same false assumption: that there is no crucial difference between land and capital.

There you have it again. You don't see connections between events and the contexts in which they are applied.

No, I am the one here who DOES see them, because I am the one who understands that definitions determine what you can talk about, and inaccurate definitions mean you can't talk about the actual issues.
"State capitalism exists when the state apparatus - rather than a group of private citizens - positions state officials to function as capitalist employers. Thus, under state capitalism it is state officials placed in charge of enterprises who hire employees, organize and supervise their activities within enterprises, sell the resulting outputs (goods or services), receive the sales revenues and thus realize any profits. State officials occupy the key directorial positions within such state capitalist enterprises."

This is just a dishonest way of blaming capitalism for the evils and failures of socialism by calling socialism, "state capitalism." It's just a stupid lie.

Either you fail to grasp what socialism is, or you are intentionally trying to mislead and confuse.

Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production (land and capital), as any good dictionary would inform you, if you were willing to be informed.
Socialism is a relationship between the employer and the employed which is fundamentally different from that of capitalism.

Socialism is not a relationship between employer and employed, but of land and capital to their owners.
In socialism, employer and employed are one and the same.

So, universal self-employment.
If that is not the prevailing condition, you aren't looking at socialism.

You aren't looking at socialism if that IS the prevailing condition.
And state capitalism, which Marx and Engels warned against, is not socialism.

Because it is an oxymoron.
Try again.

Why? I won the first time.
"An enterprise only qualifies as "socialist" once the distinction between employers and employees within it has been abolished."
So only self-employment counts as "socialist." What nonsense.

You may be the expert here but I think readers can figure this out easily enough.

Suppose you explain it. Because I'm not seeing what else it could mean.
"So long as employers, private or state, hire laborers to produce commodities and generate profits that the employers exclusively receive, the economy has a capitalist structure. So long as it is exclusively the employers (whether private, state or hybrid; whether more or less regulated) who decide how to use those profits, it is a capitalist structure."
Employees already get, and decide how to use, their rightful share of the profits of production: their wages. All wages in excess of the amount the employee could obtain without using any capital provided by an employer are profits of the enterprise's production distributed to employees.

Labor costs are a cost of doing business and accounted for prior to calculating profits.

So, you are saying that in addition to the wages they earn by their labor, employees in a socialist economy also get the profits that the employer earns by providing the capital equipment??

Thank you for confirming that it is just as I said: socialists pretend capital is land to justify stealing capital.
You are echoing the capitalist's calculation that reduction of labor costs can result in an increase in profits.

Which is certainly true.
That's why 60,000 companies have left the U.S. and moved overseas. You are merely asserting the capitalist's position.

You mean, identifying the relevant indisputable facts of objective physical reality? Guilty.
"An enterprise only qualifies as "socialist" once the distinction between employers and employees within it has been abolished."
So only self-employment is socialist.

You already tried that one.

And it's still true.
"When workers collectively and democratically produce, receive and distribute the profits their labor generates, the enterprise becomes socialist."
What about the profits the capital contributed by the employer generates -- i.e., the difference between actual production and the amount the same workers would produce with the same time and effort, but without the capital contribution of the employer?

That Wolff quote is obviously about socialism. Your question is obviously about capitalism. You're trying to mix the two.

No. Wolff is just smuggling in a claim that labor generates profits. It doesn't. Labor earns its wages. It is the provision of capital by the employer that generates profits, by increasing the productivity of labor beyond its cost. Which is why the provider of the capital gets the profits he generates, and not the laborer, who doesn't generate them.
The rest of Wolff's article is mostly delusional speculation, and not worth readers' attention.

Then you wouldn't be interested in discussing them.

Correct.
The remainder of your own comments were embarrassing cases of posturing and self-promotion.

<yawn>
You're clearly pro-capitalist,

I'm clearly anti-capitalist. You just have no space in your socialist brain for the possibility that someone can be both anti-capitalist and anti-socialist because he understands that capitalism and socialism are both false and and evil (though of the two, socialism's track record seems to be distinctly worse).
which means your views on socialism would not be expected to be objective or useful to anyone but another capitalist.

Blatant false dichotomy fallacy. My views on socialism are more objective and therefore more accurate and useful than the absurd, delusional speculations put about by ninnies like Wolff.
#14663467
Huh?? What on earth do you incorrectly imagine you think you might be talking about?

The first several lines of your objections, gripes, and whines are about this one point to which you seem entirely resistant. Maybe I can solve this by asking you a question: "do you believe every instance of capitalism that has ever appeared in the world is exactly and precisely a duplicate copy of every other one?"

That should be obvious enough for you. Now apply that concept of variations in occurrences to socialism and reread that part of my post.

I see there is really no chance of resolving "misconceptions" with you as your confusion is intentional, purposeful, and unreasoned. And therefore there is no point in discussing this because you refuse to hear.

Now go ahead and deceive yourself into believing you "won". After all, a person whose understanding of the world is no more than a product of their own fantasies "wins" every time.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

ISIS wants to create a division between Chechens […]

PoFo would be a strange place for them to focus o[…]

In my opinion, masculinity has declined for all o[…]

@ingliz good to know, so why have double standar[…]