Do you want to summerize it or something at least?
Socialism is as defined by every socialist intellectual, the worker ownership over the means of productions. The USSR was not.
This is a simple logical contradiction.
I don’t care what Mises wrote. He cannot bend reality nor logic.
“worker ownership over the means of production”
… no they didn’t. They said “common”.. [i.e public]
The concept is the same. Power to the workers.
So you’re an anarcho-communist? You don’t think the state is society? It’s not the “commons”, or represents true public ownership" ?
The state and society are completely different concepts so I don’t know what you mean. I think you are trying to go into the emotional and idealist rant about how socialism is where everyone is enslaved to society, or something?
You don’t think capitalism and class is hierarchy?
And I don’t see how your link is relevant.
It seems to me that it really is pointless getting to the perfect definition of Socialism, since the Socialists themselves seem to always know the “right” definition (which always seems to be different)
What? We can’t argue on something if we don’t use the same definition of it.
And calling socialism a totatalarian government where property is controlled by the state as socialist is a large straw man. I don’t know what you mean by “socialists seem to know the right definition”.
I think people know what political idealogy they subscribe to?
“The state and society are completely different concepts so I don’t know what you mean.”
Generally statists / socialists combine them. So you are against the state then?
“The concept is the same. Power to the workers.”
Public [common] ownership over the means of production… you said*: “The USSR was not.”*
What was it then? lol. Private ownership of the means of production? lmao..! [:D]
“You don’t think capitalism and class is hierarchy?”
There are two classes: the rulers vs. the ruled. I think you will enjoy this: Marxist and Austrian Class Anaylsis - Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
“I want to do the following in this paper: First to present the theses that constitute the hard core of the Marxist theory of history. I claim that all of them are essentially correct. Then I will show how these true theses are derived in Marxism from a false starting point. Finally, I will demonstrate how Austrianism in the Mises-Rothbard tradition can give a correct but categorically different explanation of their validity.”
I cant figure out how to quote, so bear with me.
“Generally statists / socialists combine them. So you are against the state then?”
Yes. And since when? I never read about Marx, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Luxemburg, Goldman, etc ever advocating the existence of the state.
“What was it then? lol. Private ownership of the means of production? lmao..!”
State ownership…?
“There are two classes: the rulers vs. the ruled.”
Agreed?
" I think you will enjoy this: Marxist and Austrian Class Anaylsis - Hans-Hermann Hoppe."
You want to summerize it? Because I don’t have time to watch 50 minutes of that in an annoying voice.
“The state and society are completely different concepts so I don’t know what you mean. I think you are trying to go into the emotional and idealist rant about how socialism is where everyone is enslaved to society, or something?”
You’re the only idealist here my friend. There is indeed a difference between society (civilization) and the state; the former is based on private property (liberty), while the latter is the negative of private property. The complete state is the complete negation of liberty; there is a trade-off between the two (constant tension amongst them). So again, as the state grows, liberty declines, and vice versa. This means that any philosophy which aims at the elimination of private property ipso facto supports the complete state (whether its supporters understand this or not). The empirical evidence supporting this argument is torrential.
You’re basically living in a fantasy world. There can be no civilization (society) when there is no private property. As the state grows, civilization declines.
“There is indeed a difference between society (civilization) and the state; the former is based on private property (liberty), while the latter is the negative of private property.”
That’s makes two complete assumptions, so your whole post and your whole argument is essentially nothing but assuming your right, and then saying your right.
Its also a very simplistic and idealist analysis of capitalism, society, private property and the state.
“Society needs private property. Private property is freedom. State is opposite of freedom. Yay I won the argument!”
“There can be no civilization (society) when there is no private property.”
How do you explain the many contradictory historical examples?
I also don’t see why the issue of the state is even mentioned. Unless that is your under the straw man that socialism = big government?
A troll who’s not even good at trolling…
Your ignorance isn’t my problem, and it doesn’t refute my argument (which is just an extension of Mises and Hayek’s coordination and calculation arguments).
Socialism requires omnipotent planners who have all of the available and relevant information.
Capital doesn’t fall from the sky; it has to be accumulated, structured, and maintained. Capital is also heterogeneous and complimentary; that is to say, it can be employed in many different ways, yielding different degrees of output. The price mechanism coordinates production (tells us where to produce, how much to produce, how to produce, checks malinvestments, ect).
The economy is not guided by intuition, or by lawyers who run for political office. Your local supermarket has a myriad of differentiated consumer goods which come from all corners of the Earth; why is this so? Is it a coincidence? Magic maybe?
“Its also a very simplistic and idealist analysis of capitalism, society, private property and the state.”
No, you’re just ignorant.
“I also don’t see why the issue of the state is even mentioned. Unless that is your under the straw man that socialism = big government?”
Way to completely ignore my argument. Good work.
“How do you explain the many contradictory historical examples?”
Don’t waste my time. I’m in the middle of a project, and don’t want to explode your imaginary counter-examples (Spain and ancient Greece) one-by-one. But go ahead and present them; others will do it for me.
You: “I cant figure out how to quote, so bear with me.”
Forum is going through an upgrade. Tweaks are necessary. (quote=“username”) text (/quote) … bit ( = [ etc. I can’t be assed myself, so I’ll bare with you.
Me: “Generally statists / socialists combine them. So you are against the state then?”
You: “Yes. And since when? I never read about Marx, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Luxemburg, Goldman, etc ever advocating the existence of the state.”
Ok, so you’re against the state. You’re essentially an anarcho-socialist / communist. The question is: are you a voluntary or coercive one?
What is your end goal and by what means will you use or support in efforts to achieve it?
Me: “What was it then? lol. Private ownership of the means of production? lmao..!”
You: “State ownership…?”
What is your definition of the state?
Me: "There are two classes: the rulers vs. the ruled."
You: Agreed?
Sorry, I can’t answer for you.. hehe. What then would be your definition of a ruler? What is your take on self ownership? What do you have against voluntary exchanges between individuals?
Me: "I think you will enjoy this: Marxist and Austrian Class Anaylsis - Hans-Hermann Hoppe."
You: “You want to summerize it?”
Sorry, I can only show the door - you’re the one who has to walk through it. Hans Hoppe was a marxist, I’d suggest you listen to his critique - if you are actually interested in the truth and justice. [:)]
You: “Because I don’t have time to watch 50 minutes of that in an annoying voice.”
Then scan the pdf that I linked to, which is the same talk in text form.
Preference is an implication of the action axiom and the fact that the actor is limited by scarce time and resources, so acting in one way implies not acting in another, hence the concept of preference.
What makes socialism ‘great on paper’?
Actually Drace if you read Marx’s 1844 Manuscripts, specifically “Private Property and Communism”, the period which you would probably call socialism which Marx would call “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” or “Crude Communism” is pretty much what happened in USSR.
Oh my bad, so its 5-6 assumptions instead of 2.
How does no private property imply no exchange? Unless you define private property as tooth brushes, and socks, then that’s ridiculous. The history of trade goes back perhaps 150,000 years ago, even in much of the primitive communist societies.
How does abolishing the private ownership over the means of productions (the factory, the farms, machinary etc) abolish exchange?
Did exchange not exist in the USSR?
Without private property, there can be no exchange between private individuals who compose 1% of the population but own all the institutes of life.
Also
I wasn’t even responding to your argument.
Ancient Greece o.O? Where private individuals owned slaves?
I don’t think anyone is going to call themselves a coercive anarchist. I subsribe to voluntary organazation, of which capitalism is not.
The goal is the abolition of economic hierarchy.
A centralized insitution which holds power and is capable of making laws, sustaining a military, etc.
Someone who has the coercive powers to affect other’s judgements and actions.
Self ownership is a ridiculous and idealist concept which sets to make the natural material of the world the property of a few individuals in the name of some imaginary “naturall right of private property”.
I’ll have to go through the critique later. But to tell you the truth, the last two times I read serious critics from ancaps I was very dissapointed…
“Dictatorship of the prolateriet” does not imply a totatlarian government with the state-ownership over he means of productions. When Marx used the term he was referring to the Roman “dicatura”.
What was meant was the “Dictatorship of the prolateriet” as opposed to the “Dictatorship of the bourgeiosie”
Nonetheless, very few socialists will agree that the Soviet Union was a worker’s paraside or a working example of socialism.
Speaking of emotions, what is wrong with hierarchy other than, “oh noez, me don’t like having a boss, so me rather take his property so that me, I mean, we all own it and me don’t have to work, i mean, we don’t get exploited”?
“Self ownership is a ridiculous and idealist concept which sets to make the natural material of the world the property of a few individuals in the name of some imaginary ‘naturall right of private property.’”
I’ll skip the appeal to ridicule and the straw man you made and will go straight to the part in bold. Even if this were true, what is wrong with that? Make your case, and please, no appeals to emotion.