[Ombrageux]

Eauz - I wouldn't hold your breath. The current crisis seems significantly less severe than some past ones the capitalist system has suffered.

[daft punk]

Quote Daft Punk:
"No country has ever been socialist."


Really? I guess that could be the case, since no country has ever been 100% scrupulously Laissez-faire Capitalist either. The USA is the country that came closest to 100% Capitalism, even if only for a while. Of which country could the same be said on the Socialist side? What is the Socialist analog of early USA?

I've always been curious about Socialists' views on this question. Would you guys help satisfy my curiosity by answering the following question?

Stipulating that no country has yet been 100% scrupulously Socialist, which country in your opinion came closest to that ideal, in the same way that early USA came closes to the Capitalist ideal? Have there been any others? Have there been enough that you could list in order of fidelity to the Socialist ideal, say, half a dozen or so in descending rank? I pose these questions not just to daft punk, but to all Socialists who have been reading this thread. I'd like very much to compare and contrast the lists you each come up with. It should be an interesting exercise.

Sorry, no, you are on the wrong track with this line of thinking. This is not the way to get your head around the actual reality.

First lets deal with capitalism. Anyone with two eyes and some sort of brain knows that there can never be pure capitalism. Capitalists need a state to defend their wealth. The need government for all sorts of reasons, bailouts, subsidies, taxes, import tariffs and so on. Capitalists are always tied to some national state or other. But its is still capitalism whether it is Norway or America. Whether it is neoliberalism or a more social democratic model. The capitalists are still the ruling class.

There has never remotely been a socialist country. In 1922 Lenin said they had not even built the foundations of socialism, and that it would be their children or grandchildren who built socialism. He also said that socialism could not be built in one country in isolation, especially a backward one like Russia. In fact before 1917 the Bolsheviks never even considered a socialist revolution in Russia, they were still STAGISTS. Except Trotsky.

In 1917 they had a revolution which attempted socialism. It headed in the right direction, but remained isolated. Socialism was therefore impossible, and inevitably the revolution degenerated. By 1928 it was at a turning point, capitalism was threatening restoration, but Stalin had set up a cushy number for himself and the middle class bureaucrats who were administering Russia. So he collectivised. Nothing to do with socialism, everything to do with self preservation.

So, in the late 20s, there was a gradual shift from an attempt at socialism, to hostility to it. Socialism has to be democratic, and there was no way Stalin was going to have that. 1928-34 was the Third Period in which events partially just described pushed Stalin into a pseudo-left position. It ended when the wrong policies of the Comintern led to the annihilation of the German working class. In 1936, Stalin was working 100% against socialism globally. He crushed the Spanish revolution, and he killed all the socialists in Russia.

He said this

Howard : Does this, your statement, mean that the Soviet Union has to any degree abandoned its plans and intentions for bringing about world revolution?

Stalin : We never had such plans and intentions.

Interview Between J. Stalin and
Roy Howard

(On March 1, 1936, Comrade Stalin granted an interview to
Roy Howard, President of Scripps-Howard Newspapers.)

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archi ... /03/01.htm

The Eastern European countries plus Vietnam etc and China were supposed to go CAPITALIST. It was Stalin's attempts at securing capitalism in these countries which failed, often because capitalism was simply not viable, or the masses rejected the capitalists (who had collaborated with colonial rulers or the Nazis and Japanese etc). In Poland most of the capitalists had been killed by the Nazis. There was huge pressure from the masses. In every case the communists had led the resistance or national liberation struggle. Coalition governments with capitalists were attempted and failed. The Marshall Plan was supposed to secure capitalism in Eastern Europe, but backfired. Eventually Truman started the cold war so he could intervene militarily in Greece. Stalin's plan to sabotage the revolution had failed (Russia was one of the few countries to recognise the so-called Royalist government, which actually only controlled a small part of the country).

So in terms of % socialist, Russia was heading in the right direction for the very difficult few years up to the mid 20s and then the revolution slipped into neutral and eventually reverse gear.

The closest other revolution was probably the Allende government in Chile, but I think he was a bit of a Stalinist and so inevitably cocked that one up.

Nicaragua was never socialist, but the Sandinistas did have a go, and even managed to hold elections.

Eastern Europe, China, Vietnam, Cuba and N Korea were supposed to be capitalist, in line with TWO STAGE THEORY, but capitalism failed and they slipped into a Stalinist model.

Cuba was not organised by Stalinists. I have a separate thread on that.

Russia was a degenerated workers state. All the others were deformed workers states (they did not degenerate as they were born deformed)

Phred,

The majority of Marxists and socialists would not agree with Daft Punk on many issues -- this being yet another one of them. That no country has never been socialist is preposterous and you need not engage in a quarrel over this fact.

Nonsense. I dont know how old you are or what country you live in, but in the UK only a few old men would disagree with me. I hate to shatter your life long Stalinist illusions, but it has to be done, because your (Stalinist) views got millions and millions of people killed.

I'm sure there is plenty to discuss on this issue, and I have all the facts I need, even against experienced (brainwashed) Stalinists.

I really only need to say two things, Popular Frontism and Two Stage Theory. A quick google will reveal all.

How about we discuss why stalin backed the KMT up to 1948?

Or how Stalinist policies got a million people slaughtered in Indonesia in 1965?

How Stalin tried to stop revolution in every single country which went 'communist'. (except the Baltic states which were annexed).

Vera Politica wrote:
The majority of Marxists and socialists would not agree with Daft Punk on many issues -- this being yet another one of them. That no country has never been socialist is preposterous and you need not engage in a quarrel over this fact.


My bad. It was careless of me to presume that just because someone represents himself as a Socialist, he actually fits the necessary criteria. Seriously... I am not being facetious or sarcastic here, I really did make an unwarranted assumption that daft punk's Socialist credentials were unchallenged.

However, I am still anxious to learn which countries come/came closest to meeting the Socialist prerequisites. Clearly, if it is preposterous to say no country has ever been Socialist, then it logically follows that at least one country must be Socialist, or at the minimum must have been Socialist for at least some part of its history. Accordingly, let me modify my request to this -

Which countries in your opinion can/could properly be called Socialist? If there is just one which meets/met all the essential prerequisites, could you note it but also list a few others which come/came closest to meeting all the prerequisites? I pose these questions not just to Vera Politica or daft punk, but to all Socialists who have been reading this thread.



Phred

Dude, are you quite young? I have been a Marxist for nearly 30 years. I suspect vera is an old bloke. Nobody takes a blind bit of notice of Stalinism these days, not in the west anyway. They are like dinosaurs. They are apologists for a monstrous regime.

In 1936 Stalin said that all the original Bolsheviks who had led the revolution were now working for the fascists and capitalists. It is so crazy, you couldn't make it up. While Trotsky was making his speech In Defence of October, Stalin was accusing him of trying to restore capitalism. It's kinda like watching a creationist argue with a qualified geologist. Stalin killed all the socialists in Russia because he was running an unstable, rotten regime, and he was worried that the masses might one day insist on real socialism.

Of the original Bolshevik Central Committee, about 2 survived Stalin, Kollantai purely because she was in Norway and was needed, one bloke who was a friend of Stalin, and thats it. All the rest were shot

http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/ev ... c-1917.jpg

In fact not only did Stalin kill all the socialists in Russia, he killed all their families too, to be sure.


A good book has come out on this

http://www.amazon.com/1937-Stalins-Vadi ... 0929087771

Review
1937: Stalin's Year of Terror is the first major study by a Russian Marxist historian of the most tragic and fateful year in the history of the Soviet Union. Possessing an encyclopedic knowledge of Soviet source material, including archival documents that have only recently been released, Professor Vadim Rogovin presents a detailed and penetrating analysis of the causes, impact and consequences of Stalin's purges. Rogovin demonstrates that the principal function and aim of the terror was the physical annihilation of the substantial socialist opposition to Stalin's bureaucratic regime. Moreover, Rogovin places at the very center of this historical tragedy the crucial political figure whom most contemporary historians tend, for various ideological reasons, to ignore: Leon Trotsky. Rogovin insists that it is impossible to understand the purges apart from Stalin's determination to stamp out all vestiges of Trotsky's influence which, despite years of repression, had remained a powerful current with considerable support and revolutionary potential within the USSR. Although the first to be translated into the English language, 1937: Stalin's Year of Terror is the fourth volume in a projected six-volume history of the political conflicts within the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Communist International between 1922 and 1940. Five volumes of this series have already been published, to steadily growing acclaim, in Russia. The sixth volume will be completed before the end of 1998. All six volumes will be translated into English and published by Mehring Books. --wsws.org
Product Description
The first major study by a Russian Marxist Historian of the Stalinist purges which are often collectively reffered to by the year they reached their greatest intensity: 1937. Rogovin shows that the purges were aimed at the physical annihilation of the growing socialist opposition to Stalin's bureaucratic regime. Focused on Leon Trotsky and his thousands of supporters, the purges were a blow against the October Revolution, its leaders and its heritage. This is the fourth volume of Rogovin's seven-volume series, Was There an Alternative?

Proper review here:
http://www.socialismtoday.org/134/rogovin.html

Stalin’s one-sided civil war

You can even read it on Google Books.

[Someone5]

How is the socialist government going to allocate scarce economic goods without a mechanism such as money prices to co-ordinate the factors of production and provide the producers with market signals to indicate the most efficient recipe of production?

Abolishing the price mechanism is not actually required for socialism. Socialism could operate just as well with currencies as it could without them--the existence of the price mechanism in no way inhibits reorganization of the power relationships in society.

How do they intend to increase internal pressure within the co-operative firm to force the producers to allocate their resources (namely investment) more efficiently without the test of profit v loss?

Not really required in a socialist society.

How is the socialist government going to maximise productivity when the producers know they will be stripped of their assets if they are too successful and investors have no confidence in investment?

A) "Socialist Government" is an oxymoron. It literally doesn't make any sense, except in redundant forms (for example, a "socialist government" might facilitate exchanges between firms and the public--but that doesn't really require a government anyway).
B) Even if we decide that we need to have some incredibly weak and pointless government, why on earth would socialism require it to "strip producers of their assets"? Socialism is based on the idea that people ought to be compensated for their labor; stripping them of assets because they're "too successful" violates that principle at a very basic level. Note; capitalists and investors are not producers. "Producer" refers strictly to the person who does the actual production, the worker, not the vile, rent-seeking investor class. Investors are nothing but leeches.
C) What's the point in "maximizing production" if you actually accept the idea that all capital is held in common? If there is no particular reason to use public resources, why should you? The goal of a socialist society would be to match production with demand, no more and no less.

How does the socialist government expect to meet consumer standards when public investment in projects are objectively determined by purely rational, scientific and algorithmic procedures rather than subjectively determined by ordinally ranked subjective preferences of the consumer by the law of diminishing marginal utility (as would be the ultimate determination for the allocation of goods in the market)?

You are confusing socialism for command economies. Command economies are inherently alienating, and fundamentally opposed to the goals and principles upon which socialism is based. No one but the workers would decide what ought to be produced, or how much. No central committee, no automated program, no vanguard party. All of those are examples of state capitalist institutions, not socialist instutitons.

How does the socialist government expect to measure the embodiment of labour within a commodity

It wouldn't. Again, you're criticizing command economies, which are inherently anti-socialist. The value of labor would obviously be determined by the increase in value above the resource and fixed capital costs of a good caused by subjecting the resources to labor. In other words, the "embodiment of labor within a commodity" is determined by the price that must be paid to convince someone to participate in the production of it. Note; socialism does not require abandonment of wages, it merely requires the reorganization of the relationships of power within a workplace. Democratic workplaces would qualify as socialist, though a workplace controlled by an external central committee would certainly not be. Socialism is about power relationships, not wages. If the inequality in power relationships are addressed, the wages will naturally follow.

If you are a socio-anarchist, then why do you honestly believe the community board could centrally plan an economy on a more localised level any better, regardless of whether or not you believe the process would be non-hierarchical?

Willing workers are far more productive than unwilling workers; removal of unwilling workers from the workplace will increase productivity, since it decreases the need for management and reduces the time wasted on organizational communication. However, your assertion about central planning is quite off the mark.

And why do you not believe it would not become hierarchical and authoritarian given the necessity for specialisation?

Specialization does not inherently lead to hierarchies. What leads to hierarchies is an economic system reliant upon the compulsion of workers; that creates the need for management, which establishes authoritarian inequalities in the workplace. There is no particular reason why a specialized cashier ought to have less say than a specialized salesperson in organizational decision making. Note that administration is different from management, and administration in anarchist firms would be especially different--"managers" would have even less authority than the workers, and would probably be paid less. Their job, after all, would merely be to communicate the demands of the workers they represent to other firms and councils.

[starcraftzzz]

How is the socialist government going to allocate scarce economic goods without a mechanism such as money prices to co-ordinate the factors of production and provide the producers with market signals to indicate the most efficient recipe of production?

The same way socialized medicine and social security works. All necessities/opportunities will be provided for all.
However who said a socialist government should/will always eliminate money?
I'd like a socialist government that would provide all necessities and opportunities free of charge via taxation (food, cloths, per-college education, shelter, medicine, transportation etc etc) each good provided for all would work just like the food stamp program in America.

How do they intend to increase internal pressure within the co-operative firm to force the producers to allocate their resources (namely investment) more efficiently without the test of profit v loss?

Socialism doesn't advocate the eliminate of profits where as profits means "how much money you get", instead we advocate that instead of "money" being the primary goal improvement of society is. The same incentives to be efficient/produce more are there regardless. The only differences is that instead of all the power being centralized amongst a few some of that power will be delegated to the workers

How is the socialist government going to maximise productivity when the producers know they will be stripped of their assets if they are too successful and investors have no confidence in investment?

How in capitalism will the private market maximize productivity when the workers know they will be stripped of their labor and production in order to enrich the capitalist?
The answer is simple people want to have nice things, either they work to get money to purchase them or they don't

How does the socialist government expect to meet consumer standards when public investment in projects are objectively determined by purely rational, scientific and algorithmic procedures rather than subjectively determined by ordinally ranked subjective preferences of the consumer by the law of diminishing marginal utility (as would be the ultimate determination for the allocation of goods in the market)?

Well rationally we want basketball courts, soccer fields in order to occupy by the youth so they aren't robbing convenient stores or getting fat on the couch so we build those things for them.

How does the socialist government expect to measure the embodiment of labour within a commodity by which they hope to allocate labour vouchers during the transitional phase to communism (the dictatorship of the proletariat) and again, how does this objectively determined whim meet the efficiency of money (the equilibrium price which can only be objectively determined organically in the market place)? What are your thoughts on marginal utility theory?

The same way its done currently; the only difference being that instead of power centralized amongst a few and decision made by only a few everyone makes those decisions and everyone benefits

[Sceptic]

I'm getting a fair few replies to a relatively old thread now in which the main objection seems to be that socialism is not necessarily a moneyless economy (which in theory is correct). Perhaps I should have specified that by socialism I was referring to the transition phase to communism and my belief, that can be further articulated if necessary, that money is not possible without a price on the production factor which in turn is impossible given the centralisation of private property. Furthermore inflation soar as a product of centralised banking distorting the pricing mechanism which makes trade with the given currency impossible. I don't want to sound like an Austrian here but I do agree with the calculation problem. I would also ask some of the newer posters to read some of my replies already posted in this thread which address some of the concerns raised but keep in mind that I was more prone to err a few months ago.

I want to edit this into the OP but don't seem able to, perhaps a mod can help...

[Vera Politica]

Socialism doesn't advocate the eliminate of profits

Marxian socialism certainly does; that is, the elimination of private profit and socialized distribution according to need (capitalism has already been responsible for the socialization of production).

[Sceptic]

Socialism doesn't advocate the eliminate of profits where as profits means "how much money you get", instead we advocate that instead of "money" being the primary goal improvement of society is. The same incentives to be efficient/produce more are there regardless. The only differences is that instead of all the power being centralized amongst a few some of that power will be delegated to the workers

You have two forms of incentivation: extrinsic and intrinsic. Whereas it is possible to fulfill both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation in a capitalist society, you have just abolished extrinsic incentivation in a socialist society. Not everybody feels an intrinsic duty to their commonwealth.

[starcraftzzz]

[
Marxian socialism certainly does; that is, the elimination of private profit and socialized distribution according to need (capitalism has already been responsible for the socialization of production).

Socialism doesn't advocate the eliminating of profits. It advocates that instead of profits just being how muhc money you get instead it includes the total benefit to society

[Paradigm]

Socialism doesn't advocate the eliminating of profits. It advocates that instead of profits just being how muhc money you get instead it includes the total benefit to society

I suspect you're new to socialism and don't understand what the term "profit" means in this context. Profit refers to the surplus value which the capitalist is able to extract from the labor of others. Under socialism, the means of production would be controlled by the workers, so there would be no capitalist class, and therefore no profit.

[Daktoria]

I suspect you're new to socialism and don't understand what the term "profit" means in this context. Profit refers to the surplus value which the capitalist is able to extract from the labor of others. Under socialism, the means of production would be controlled by the workers, so there would be no capitalist class, and therefore no profit.

Actually, profit means something much deeper in socialism. It refers to the exchange value alienated from concrete labor due to the quantified economizing of time.

Marx hated math.

[Paradigm]

Actually, profit means something much deeper in socialism. It refers to the exchange value alienated from concrete labor due to the quantified economizing of time.

Thank you for the elaboration, but that's pretty consistent with what I said.

Marx hated math.

Demonstrably untrue as anyone who's read Capital knows.

[Daktoria]

Demonstrably untrue as anyone who's read Capital knows.

Not really. Marx completely discounts management in the transformation problem by restricting surplus value to direct labor. He also ignores integration in his mathematical transcripts, only emphasizing differentiation, giving him no insight on the distribution of time.

If Marx himself was managing a company mathematically, he would have no defense against workers taking over and ruining the means of production.

This misunderstanding of time also creates a marketing problem.

First, his definition of "socially necessary labor time" is predicated on average, not marginal, inputs.

Second, the lack of marginal inputs fails to account for competitive prices. Interestingly, he accounts for variable inputs, but he never makes the leap to marginal costs having to equal marginal price.

This should be very obvious anyway due to Marx's complete dismissal of the demand side of economics.

[Sceptic]

First, his definition of "socially necessary labor time" is predicated on average, not marginal, inputs.

Dak, I want to thank you so much for saying this. I think someone should go and post this one sentence all over RevLeft or something

[Vera Politica]

Demonstrably untrue as anyone who's read Capital knows.

This too

First, his definition of "socially necessary labor time" is predicated on average, not marginal, inputs.

I don't see how this is relevant. This was Marx's method for calculating value; not his method for calculating price. The value of any product is the socially necessary labor-time to produce it; a bad slow worker does not add value to any given product s/he produces. This is, in any case, markedly different from price (and Marx adhered to standard economic analysis in determining price: supply and demand).

[Daktoria]

The transformation problem dealt with converting value into price.

Also, Marx didn't care about marginal labor. He only cared about average labor.