The Leftist AssemblyBoard

Woflines wrote:

Again, where do you get this idea of "primal need" from?
I explained to you before that this idea of human nature is flawed. If we change the relations of production in such a way that this "greed" is no longer a necessity to get by, but in fact becomes a hindrance, it would simply be erased from human relations.
Just as the old relations of the serf who worked the land for the aristocrat vanished after the bourgeoisie overthrew them, so too will the proletarian-capitalist exploitation relations be overthrown this by the proletarian class.

people will always yearn for better, why would you settle for what you have when you could get more. the USSR collasped, at least partly, due to this yearning for better.

Greatereurope wrote:

I would just like to add to my previous point that even if humans became these selfless animals that cared about others as much as themselves (they won't), that there is another issue with communism:lack of incentive to achieve: humans, throghout history, have been shown to be pretty lazy animals. some examples include: agriculture, no more chasing our food. horse riding, no more walking everywhere. cars, no more breeding horses, the use of oxen for plowing fields, no more humans plowing fields, and automation, no more handcrafting everything. as humans are lazy creatures, and if i get the same standard of living weather i work at mcdonalds or work as a lawyor, why wouldnt i take the path of least resistance, this would lead to less highly skilled workers. people may do hard jobs, such as doctor or lawtor because other reasons, but these peopke are exceptions rather than the rule.

Hecknamistan wrote:

Plenty of people are compassionate towards their fellow man, it's our natural state. It takes external forces to make people stop caring about others, those external factors being imperialism and capitalism.

As well labour shouldn't be about incentive, it should be about passion. Farmers don't farm because they have to, they farm because it's who they are. Machinists like myself don't study engineering because they need to, but rather because it's what we want to be doing with our lives. Labourers, regardless of system, choose their field through internal paths, as well automation is what will allow a socialist society to get around the "but what about assembly lines" bs.

I would just like to add that no one ever claimed that janitors and doctors need to be paid the same in socialism, this has literally never been implemented in any socialist country. I honestly don't understand where people got this idea from.

Ofuria wrote:

Hello comrades,

I am a devout socialist (democratic libertarian), but I have recently begun to question our ideology and have been disillusioned as to its practicality. Please educate me on the following issues:

1) How could socialism provide work for everybody and how could government ownership of the means of production not lead to oppression?

2) how could socialism be implemented without bloodshed?

3) How do we combat the point that many workers are happy in their jobs and receive great benefits?

4) How would a business under socialism work? what’s wrong with worker cooperatives?

I know that was a lot, but it would mean a lot if I could have one or more of you guys help. This is not a troll or a bait or anything, and I legitimately want to be recommitted to the cause.

Other comrades here have made some great responses already (Woflines's excellent point about labor aristocracy links into what I mention about unequal exchange) but I figured I'd give my two cents since I'd already written up most of my response and it's a little different than others so far.

Democratic socialism has a range of meanings, but I understand it as based around the idea that we can use the electoral system of bourgeois democracies to achieve socialism. I don't personally see value in the authoritarian/libertarian distinction but if one has to crouch analysis in those terms I see the use of state power, be it in a liberal democracy or revolutionary workers' state, regardless if it's used to advance socialism/workers' interests or not, as inherently authoritarian and the defining line between libertarian socialists and other socialists (note, I'm not saying that the use of state power by socialists is wrong or bad). So for me at least the idea of libertarian democratic socialism is incoherent. Maybe I misunderstood what you mean by "democratic libertarian" though, in that case disregard this paragraph.

Various socialist states effectively achieved full employment. I think many socialists with their eyes set forward towards automation don't understand how important this was and still is... Marx notes in Capital how the working class is weaponized against itself in capitalism through the reserve army of labor, how the unemployed are used against other workers essentially, something that on a generalized and mass scale is historically unique to capitalism.

As the Chartist slogan went, "peaceably if we can, forcibly if we must." I don't realistically believe socialism could be achieved without violence of some sort. This isn't out of some bloodlust but just acknowledging that the transition of economic and political systems has far more often than not come with violence historically.

One could've justified the status quo in any previous economic system that way, ex: "what about the serfs who like feudalism?" Also, since the 70s wages have been pretty stagnant in the West, certainly not keeping up with increases in worker productivity. Benefits are getting cut and previous "good jobs" are becoming more and more insecure; our welfare states are threadbare. That's not even touching on unequal exchange and how Western social democracies at their peak were sustained through more extreme exploitation abroad...

There are too many varieties of socialism with wildly varying views to give a full answer to this question. In communism there would be no "business" so to speak at all (even the idea of the individual firm would be too limiting), some like market socialists would advocate basically just a system of co-ops in a similar framework as what we have now. As far as I know all socialist states have had co-op sectors of the economy, Cuba right now is trying to manage the transition of many small state owned firms like restaurants, salons, etc. into workers' co-ops.

My suggestion for newer socialists looking for the right tendency or unsure about their views is to get a solid grasp of the foundations of the main trends in socialism (Marxism, anarchism, etc.) and build off from there rather than looking at tendencies in the abstract and picking what seems to suit your current sensibilities best. I hate to see people pick a niche tendency that looks good on paper or a surface level examination and end up moving on from the left when they find issues with it and don't have an honest understanding of other leftist tendencies that might have an answer to their questions. Make sure and read the actual authors rather than Wikipedia! Most of the classics are available for free online at marxists.org and theanarchistlibrary.org. It's always good to look for or connect with socialists in your area as well, the online left is not even close to the real left and while the RL left has its own issues and petty drama I don't think it's close to as alienating.

Grod Island wrote:

According to me Democracy is idealistic whereas Communism is more practical.

Communism requires democracy. It's democracy in the workplace.

If you mean bourgeois democracy when you say democracy then I agree.

as a general question, pro life or pro choice

communism works baby

ive got 100 messages to read in this group and cant be bothered, anyone care to give a recap

Woflines wrote:

Hi,

1)
If you look at most socialist countries in the past, the unemployment rate was pretty low compared to their capitalist counterparts, part of the reason for that was everyone had the right to work.

For example, let's look at Stalin's Soviet Union:(https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons04.html#chap10) read Art. 118
For the stats read:(https://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/1928/sufds/ch17.htm)

You have to look at institutions such as the state with their class character in mind.
State ownership of the means of production does lead to oppression, to the oppression of the bourgeois class, if the state is in the hands of the proletariat, that is, if it's a dictatorship of the proletariat. This is what Marxists argue.
Think of the state as tool, an instrument. A monopoly on violence. Currently it is the bourgeois class which controls this tool (ever notice any politicians actually supporting workers getting any power for a significant amount of time? Me neither.), so why not use this this instrument in the favour of the proletariat?

2)
Violent revolution is unfortunately most likely a necessity, for the simple reason that capitalists won't willingly give up the means of production to the workers.

3)
The workers who are happy with their jobs are either:

-Unaware/apathetic to the fact that their surplus value is being extracted(this is called false conciousness)

-These workers are part of the labour aristocracy (the ones who receive "great benefits")
How could the second category exist? You might ask, :
Imperialism, I won't go into detail about super profits etc here, but if you're interested I would suggest reading Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism by Lenin. Basically, these "great benefits" happen in the first world where the capitalists can afford them, they do this to "appease" the workers, which is why many Marxists believe that the first world doesn't have much revolutionary potential, that doesn't mean we should give up on the first world, but we definitely need to factor this in when analysing countries such as the USA and Germany.

4)
A business under socialism would either be state directed or a coop. The positions within the company would remain largely unchanged, the difference would be the value one receives in accordance to the quality and quantity of his/her work would be closer to reality than in capitalism.
There is nothing wrong with coops, they are actually more productive than standard companies (Badmouse, an anarchist, made a great video about how coops are more productive but less competitive than companies: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAxajtiRatg), they are just not enough to bring about socialism on their own since they can't out-compete large, private companies. But like I said earlier, they are fine in socialism.

Hope this helped.

Woflines

Yes, this was extremely helpful. I have a follow-up question, however. How would a government enforce socialism? How would every single private business be taken under state control? Would private cooperatives be left alone? Again, thank you so so so much.

Ofuria wrote:

Hello comrades,

I am a devout socialist (democratic libertarian), but I have recently begun to question our ideology and have been disillusioned as to its practicality. Please educate me on the following issues:

1) How could socialism provide work for everybody and how could government ownership of the means of production not lead to oppression?

2) how could socialism be implemented without bloodshed?

3) How do we combat the point that many workers are happy in their jobs and receive great benefits?

4) How would a business under socialism work? what’s wrong with worker cooperatives?

I know that was a lot, but it would mean a lot if I could have one or more of you guys help. This is not a troll or a bait or anything, and I legitimately want to be recommitted to the cause.

1: Government ownership would be as democratic as the government itself is. But personally I'm a libertarian socialist, I back PUBLIC ownership, not government ownership. I don't favour the state at all, so it's not really a relevant question for all branches of Socialism.

2: It may not be able to. The only real method is to go as far as we can without it, and then, if it becomes necessary, do our utmost to restrict and restrain violence only to the level that is necessary for collective defense of the rights of the people.

3: The fact that many others are not. And the fact that those benefits are wholly dependant on the continuing beneficance of their bosses. The worker, particularly the non-unionised worker, is still at the mercy if his or her boss to grant those benefits, and has little recourse if they are removed. The occasionally benign slavemaster is not a point in favour of slavery.

4: Business could work in many different ways, but ultimately the major differences is simply cutting out the middle-man. For instance, I work in retail, the managers there do absolutely no work that is not capable of being done by any competent adult, and yet are paid substantially more (yet substantially less than the executives who do substantially less work then anybody). Why is this? There is no economic reason for it. Chop out the unnecessary middle-men, and let the workers, who know the business best, control it's productive output and rewards.

Those are some brief points, does that help? I'm around to talk more about this if you want!

Cedoria wrote:

1: Government ownership would be as democratic as the government itself is. But personally I'm a libertarian socialist, I back PUBLIC ownership, not government ownership. I don't favour the state at all, so it's not really a relevant question for all branches of Socialism.

2: It may not be able to. The only real method is to go as far as we can without it, and then, if it becomes necessary, do our utmost to restrict and restrain violence only to the level that is necessary for collective defense of the rights of the people.

3: The fact that many others are not. And the fact that those benefits are wholly dependant on the continuing beneficance of their bosses. The worker, particularly the non-unionised worker, is still at the mercy if his or her boss to grant those benefits, and has little recourse if they are removed. The occasionally benign slavemaster is not a point in favour of slavery.

4: Business could work in many different ways, but ultimately the major differences is simply cutting out the middle-man. For instance, I work in retail, the managers there do absolutely no work that is not capable of being done by any competent adult, and yet are paid substantially more (yet substantially less than the executives who do substantially less work then anybody). Why is this? There is no economic reason for it. Chop out the unnecessary middle-men, and let the workers, who know the business best, control it's productive output and rewards.

Those are some brief points, does that help? I'm around to talk more about this if you want!

Yes, this helped A LOT! Thank you! One more question, though: under socialism, how would people be paid, and would people have the choice to buy whatever they want, as in capitalism (i understand capitalism requires consumerism but could we still be able to buy what we want)?

Hecknamistan wrote:

I know I'm answering all of these, lemme know if it's getting annoying.

Socialism would seek to eventually phase out the need for money, but that's very late stage. During the lead up to that a number of systems could be used, for instance the USSR continued to pay workers with paper money and allowed them to buy just about whatever they wanted. There's also proposed systems similar to paper money, such as ration tokens, labour points, ETC. As well as we move deeper into the age of computers, it's very possible the economy would be found mostly online. The point is however, the worker will continue to get paid regardless of the payment system used.

Of course, it is not annoying at all. Thank you so much, and I genuinely appreciate everyone who helped me in my little existentialist crisis haha... workers of the world, unite!

Ofuria, I would recommend reading Post-Scarcity Anarchism by Murray Bookchin: https://libcom.org/files/Post-Scarcity%20Anarchism%20-%20Murray%20Bookchin.pdf. Though he was an anarchist/communalist/left-libertarian, I would imagine his arguments on post-scarcity economy would be helpful in building an understanding of a moneyless society.