The Workers Dream: Socialism and Communism

Originally posted by bmullini
When looking back at the history of WHEN it has been implemented, there has always been an over-bearing government that restricts the natural God given rights of men to lead their own lives in the fashion they please (with respect to the rights of others).

That is a logical fallacy based on the lies of the authoritarian state.

States that claimed to be socialist actually were not. Socialism is not a form of government, it is an economic system. Unless the state implements a socialist economy, worker owned and controlled, then they are not socialist, regardless of what they call themselves.

For example the DDR, German Democratic Republic, East Germany, I think you will agree was neither a republic nor a democracy. Was the USSR a democracy? It called itself a republic, which implies representative democracy. Is it only true when they call themselves socialist or communist?

republic re·pub·lic [ri-puhb-lik] noun

1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

dictionary.reference.com...

The USSR, for example, had a state-capitalist economy, private ownership of the means of production by and for the benefit of party members. State ownership is not socialism. If it is ran on behalf of the people, for the benefit of the people it is a public company, which is nationalisation. Public is not the same as common ownership, which is worker ownership.

Nationalization (British English spelling nationalisation) is the process of taking a private industry or private assets into public ownership by a national government or state.[1] Nationalization usually refers to private assets, but may also mean assets owned by lower levels of government, such as municipalities, being transferred to the public sector to be operated and owned by the state.

en.wikipedia.org...

The acknowledged aim of socialism is to take the means of production out of the hands of the capitalist class and place them into the hands of the workers. This aim is sometimes spoken of as public ownership, sometimes as common ownership of the production apparatus. There is, however, a marked and fundamental difference.

Public ownership is the ownership, i.e. the right of disposal, by a public body representing society, by government, state power or some other political body. The persons forming this body, the politicians, officials, leaders, secretaries, managers, are the direct masters of the production apparatus; they direct and regulate the process of production; they command the workers. Common ownership is the right of disposal by the workers themselves; the working class itself — taken in the widest sense of all that partake in really productive work, including employees, farmers, scientists — is direct master of the production apparatus, managing, directing, and regulating the process of production which is, indeed, their common work.

Anton Pannekoek 1947 Public Ownership and Common Ownership

The term “State Capitalism” is frequently used in two different ways: first, as an economic form in which the state performs the role of the capitalist employer, exploiting the workers in the interest of the state. The federal mail system or a state-owned railway are examples of this kind of state capitalism. In Russia, this form of state capitalism predominates in industry : the work is planned, financed and managed by the state; the directors of industry are appointed by the state and profits are considered the income of the state. Second, we find that a condition is defined as state capitalism (or state socialism) under which capitalist enterprises are controlled by the state. This definition is misleading, however, as there still exists under these conditions capitalism in the form of private ownership, although the owner of an enterprise is no longer the sole master, his power being restricted so long as some sort of social insurance system for the workers is accepted.

Anton Pannekoek 1936 State Capitalism and Dictatorship

The truth about politics lies in history, not in the present.

reply to post by ANOK


So you admit that Socialism does not work because someone gets greedy . I am sure that I have more wealth and materials than any as you say Socialist worker . Socialism is for lazy individuals who do not want to achieve .They are entitlement freaks . WE have some over here that want it handed to them and do absolutely nothing except get fat .
I personally like to work for what I get , be my own man . But you must be one who wants everything given to you . Some one like Cass Sunstien who is a little girly guy that has likely ever had a blister form working and is a Globalist Jew and is trying to CHANGE America to Socialism needs to be deported . But he is working with Obama to dismantle America . Are you also in that corner ?

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by ANOK

 

So you admit that Socialism does not work because someone gets greedy.

How did I admit to that?

I am sure that I have more wealth and materials than any as you say Socialist worker . Socialism is for lazy individuals who do not want to achieve .They are entitlement freaks . WE have some over here that want it handed to them and do absolutely nothing except get fat .
I personally like to work for what I get , be my own man . But you must be one who wants everything given to you . Some one like Cass Sunstien who is a little girly guy that has likely ever had a blister form working and is a Globalist Jew and is trying to CHANGE America to Socialism needs to be deported . But he is working with Obama to dismantle America . Are you also in that corner ?

Hmmm you obviously do not understand what socialism is. Socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production. How is that for individuals who are lazy?

If people are lazy then that's their problem, they are not going to benefit much in a socialist economy where people who want to work can, and those that don't will have to fend for themselves.

Capitalism makes it easy to be lazy, especially if you come from a wealthy family. With money you don't have to do anything, you pay other people to do it for you. Money made from the labour of others.

Nothing is given to you, worker ownership means you and me have to take responsibility for our lives, and not expect, or have, other people do it for you.

Obviously your idea of socialism is the falsity created by the state. Answer me this question, how can anarchists be socialists if socialism means some kind of state system?

"Anarchism is stateless socialism" - Mikhail Bakunin

"We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality." The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 269

Mikhail Bakunin was one of the intellectual founding fathers of Anarchism. He is often considered to be Marx's historical rival. When Marx headed toward State-run Socialism, Bakunin argued for the abolition of the State as the most fundamental goal for those who want to guarantee freedom.

"Anarchism is the no-government system of socialism." - Peter Kropotkin - Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 46

"In common with all socialists, the anarchists hold that the private ownership of land, capital, and machinery has had its time; that it is condemned to disappear: and that all requisites for production must, and will, become the common property of society, and be managed in common by the producers of wealth. And. . . they maintain that the ideal of the political organisation of society is a condition of things where the functions of government are reduced to minimum. . . [and] that the ultimate aim of society is the reduction of the functions of government to nil -- that is, to a society without government, to an-archy" Peter Kropotkin, Op. Cit., p. 46

A.1.4 Are anarchists socialists?

Yes. All branches of anarchism are opposed to capitalism. This is because capitalism is based upon oppression and exploitation (see sections B and C). Anarchists reject the "notion that men cannot work together unless they have a driving-master to take a percentage of their product" and think that in an anarchist society "the real workmen will make their own regulations, decide when and where and how things shall be done." By so doing workers would free themselves "from the terrible bondage of capitalism." [Voltairine de Cleyre, "Anarchism," pp. 30-34, Man!, M. Graham (Ed), p. 32, p. 34]

www.spunk.org...

Socialism is not what you have been told it is. People have been conditioned to be very emotional when discussing this, which it makes it very difficult to see, or accept, the truth.

Not all of these are 100% worker owned, but this is socialism, and we have a state system.

www.nceo.org...

What is the problem here? How do these companies have anything to do with the state? Would they not be able to operate without a state system?

A capitalist company sure as hell couldn't. Without the state the private owner has no protected rights to use their property to hire wage labour. Nothing would stop people from simply taking over the means of production, it's much easier to work, if you have the means, than deal with poverty and crime.

The capitalist only has economic private property rights because they are granted by the state.

Socialism can be state free as any true anarchist will tell you.

reply to post by ANOK


en.wikipedia.org...

The reasons for the famine are a subject of scholarly and political debate. Some scholars suggest that the famine was a consequence of the economic problems associated with changes implemented during the period of Soviet industrialisation.[15][16][19][20][34] Collectivization also contributed to famine in 1932. Collectivization in the USSR, including the Ukrainian SSR, was not popular among the peasantry and forced collectivisation lead to numerous peasant revolts. The First Five-Year Plan changed the output expected from Ukrainian farms, from the familiar crop of grain to unfamiliar crops like sugar beets and cotton. In addition, the situation was exacerbated by poor administration of the plan and the lack of relevant general management. Significant amounts of grain remained unharvested, and – even when harvested – a significant percentage was lost during processing, transportation, or storage. However, it has also been proposed by certain historians that the Soviet leadership used the famine to attack Ukrainian nationalism and thus may fall under the legal definition of genocide.[14][15][16][17][18] For example, special and particularly lethal policies were adopted in and largely limited to Soviet Ukraine at the end of 1932 and 1933; "each of them may seem like an anodyne administrative measure, and each of them was certainly presented as such at the time, and yet each had to kill."[55] A 2011 documentary, Genocide Revealed, presents evidence for the view that Stalin and his cohorts in the Communist regime (not necessarily the Russian people as a whole) deliberately targeted Ukrainians in the mass starvation of 1932–1933.[56] For more about the Holodomor as an act of genocide, see the section below on the Genocide question.

I know this is wikipedia, which is not admissible as a literary reference in academia, but this is what I am referencing when I speak of a something much worse. Farmers who did not go along with "collectivisation" were removed and imprisoned for noncompliance. "Poor administration" was then placed on the property where a "lack of relevant general management" occurred. People who had no idea how to farm where placed on properties and told to grow things that they had no idea how to grow. According to the reference, 3-3.5 million people died of starvation and possibly 10 million died because of the famine (possibly attributed to infant mortality).

For socialism to take hold in an economy, it has to be implemented by a governing body. When the Proletariats rose up and removed the Bourgeois, leaders like Stalin and Lenin took power and many good and innocent people died.

reply to post by ANOK


Your study into Socialism is somewhat fruitless because real world socialism in practice is not possible . There will always be those with money that will never do anything . Socialism in practice is really Communism .There is no beauty in Communism . You can theorise all you want but reality always gets in the way .

reply to post by bmullini


But that wasn't socialism.

Collectivization does not mean socialism. Socialism does not have to be collectivization either, and collective means different things depending on the context.

The USSR had a state-capitalist economy. They did not have worker ownership.

Collective is just another word for cooperative when used by socialists. It is a voluntary collective, not forced. Collective simply means a group of people working together, cooperating for a common goal. Worker owned companies would be collectives simply because all would be equal owners, and have an equal say in the running of the company. The term does not automatically mean anything nefarious.

Those who don't want to work at a collective would not be forced to. For example, during the Spanish revolution in 1936 those who didn't want to be a part of the collective community were given a plot of land large enough to live off.

Forced collectivization is no better than forced work. We all like to work, but no one liked forced work. Socialism is voluntary, not forced, and has nothing to do with governments. Or at least it didn't until they got involved in order to control it, and maintain their power.

Originally posted by SimonPeter
Your study into Socialism is somewhat fruitless because real world socialism in practice is not possible . There will always be those with money that will never do anything . Socialism in practice is really Communism .There is no beauty in Communism . You can theorise all you want but reality always gets in the way .

No, if the means of production are owned in common then no one can monopolise the means to produce.

The only way to make enough money that you have the economic power to control is with capitalism. The mass wealth made by capitalists came from the exploitation of labour. Without their monopoly on the means to produce then they cannot exploit labour.

Socialism and communism are the same thing. What you are referring to is not communism.

Marx and Engels used the terms Communism and Socialism to mean precisely the same thing. They used “Communism” in the early years up to about 1875, and after that date mainly used the term “Socialism.” There was a reason for this. In the early days, about 1847-1850, Marx and Engels chose the name “Communism” in order to distinguish their ideas from Utopian, reactionary or disreputable movements then in existence, which called themselves “Socialist.” Later on, when these movements disappeared or went into obscurity, and when, from 1870 onwards, parties were being formed in many countries under the name Social-Democratic Party or Socialist Party, Marx and Engels reverted to the words Socialist and Socialism. Thus when Marx in 1875 (as mentioned by Lenin) wanted to make the distinction referred to by the Daily Worker, he spoke of the “first phase of Communist society” and “a higher phase of Communist society.” Engels, writing in the same year, used the term Socialism, not Communism, and habitually did so afterwards. Marx also fell, more or less closely, into line with this change of names and terms, using sometimes the one, sometimes the other, without any distinction of meaning.

www.marxists.org...

There is absolutely nothing fruitless about understanding the reality, and truth, that has been denied to us by the state.

Real socialism is what happened in Spain for three years 1936-38, not what happened in the USSR, or China, or N.Korea, or Cuba. There was no government for almost three years and the workers collectivised industry, increased wages, and made huge improvements to the infrastructure.

...Within workplaces wages were equalised and conditions greatly improved. Take for example the tramways. Out of the 7,000 workers, 6,500 were members of the CNT [Anarchists]. Street battles had brought all transport to a halt. The transport syndicate appointed a commission of seven to occupy the administrative offices while others inspected the tracks and drew up a plan of repair work that needed to be done. Five days after the fighting stopped, 700 tramcars, instead of the usual 600, all painted in the black and red colours of the CNT were operating on the streets of Barcelona.

With the profit motive gone, safety became more important and the number of accidents was reduced. Fares were lowered and services improved. In 1936, 183,543,516 passengers were carried. In 1937 this had gone up by 50 million. The trams were running so efficiently that the workers were able to give money to other sections of urban transport. Also, free medical care was provided for the work force....

1936-1939: The Spanish civil war and revolution

The Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT; "National Confederation of Labour") is a Spanish confederation of anarcho-syndicalist labour unions affiliated with the International Workers Association (IWA; Spanish: AIT – Asociación Internacional de los Trabajadores). When working with the latter group it is also known as CNT-AIT. Historically, the CNT has also been affiliated with the Federación Anarquista Ibérica (Iberian Anarchist Federation – FAI). In this capacity it was referred to as the CNT-FAI. Throughout its history, it has played a major role in the Spanish labor movement.

Confederación Nacional del Trabajo

reply to post by ANOK


Maybe you addressed this and I missed it, but under Socialism, what happens to the people who are unable to contribute, i.e. those who are too sick, or physically/mentally incapable?

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Maybe you addressed this and I missed it, but under Socialism, what happens to the people who are unable to contribute, i.e. those who are too sick, or physically/mentally incapable?

That is a good question and doesn't get talked about too much. I am disabled myself.

Mutual aid would provide for those who can't work.

Paul Mattick 1956 Kropokin on Mutual Aid — Review

"More hospitals and clinics are being run by for-profit corporations; many institutions, forced to battle for 'customers,' seem to value a skilled director of marketing more highly than a skilled caregiver. As in any other economic sector, the race for profits translates into pressure to reduce costs, and the easiest way to do it here is to cut back on services to unprofitable patients, that is, those who are more sick than rich...." No Contest, p. 240

Again the Spanish revolution shows a good example of what would happen to the health care system...

The Spanish Revolution of the 1930s provides us one example of an anarchist health service in practice. In rural areas local doctors often joined the village collective and provided their services like any other worker. Where local doctors were not available, "arrangements were made by the collectives for treatment of their members by hospitals in nearby localities. In a few cases, collectives themselves built hospitals; in many they acquired equipment and other things needed by their local physicians."

An Anarchist Vision of Universal Health Care: Mutual Aid through Self-Managed Health Cooperatives

reply to post by bmullini


Revolution is an on going process. In socialism, the state is not really needed but it depends on the level of the people`s awareness of themselves and the society as a whole. Socialism is about putting control of the means of production into the direct control of the workers. It is dangerous to totally smash the state if the people are not ready for it. It can take a long time to get the entire society ready to function without a strong state. From what I have seen when socialism has been established in certain nations, the state served two roles:

1) As a guiding light to bring about the needed social and economic change required
2)As a force to carry out revolutionary ideas across the entire society(education, defense etc)