I just saw this youtube comment and it´s not the first time that I heart an argument like this:
it is impossible to have true socialism be totalitarian, that is an oxymoron. In socialism, the workers own the means of production and thus cannot be subjected to a totalitarian form of government.
How can you debunk arguments like this? First I think that he is wrong about the definition of socialism, cause the means of production are almost always owned by the state. Secondly, is this an example of the No true Scotsman fallacy?
In my opinion totalitarianism has nothing to do with whether workers own means of the production or not. Its about total control over humans and their property. What about “workers” that want to opt out of this system and live under free market capitalism. If they are free to do as they wish then indeed “true socialism” is not totalitarian.
He’s referring to the other definition of socialism, which is not state ownership of the means of production, but public/no ownership of means of production, i.e. “the workers own the factories”. He’s technically right, his brand of socialism wouldn’t be totalitarian nor would it necessarily have to be statist. It has a different flaw; it’s a pipe dream. They are completely forgetting that economic activity requires risk-taking and initiative, in short: organization. They are talking about “the factories” as if factories simply pop up in the countryside when it’s time for them to be built. Somebody has to organize that. In his society there wouldn’t be any factories. Socialists could take over existing factories, but there wouldn’t be any new ones. Thus in practice “true” socialism degenerates into central planning whenever attempted, because somebody has to organize things or people starve.
The problem with this argument is that “the people…” is statist doubletalk and euphemistic language for “the state”. Whenever a statist speaks of a state he might start of his sentence with “society has decided…” or “the people decided…”. These people confuse the state with “the people”. So when a socialist says he wants “the people” to own capital, he means to say that “the state will own capital which will be democratically chosen”. Which is in the end the same as saying that the state owns the capital.
Unless this person is advocating anarcho-syndicalism. Which is not really statism, but rather would be an ultimate economic failure.
Well that’s all good and nice for the “workers”. The question remains: In such “true socialism”, what type of (non-totalitarian) form of government would prevent “non-workers” from owning (buying?) anything they wanted, including “means of production”?
Btw, in true capitalism, no one is preventing anyone (“workers” and “non-workers” alike) from owning anything, including “means of production”.
No brainer. The argument is best answered by agreeing. True socialism is NOT totalitarian, which is precisely why it can’t exist. Someone has to make sure everyone’s getting their appropriate share. There are only two methods of doing so. Private ownwership or totalitarianism. Fifty people can claim to own a factory, but what does that mean? Which part do you own? Or does everyone own the whole collectively? Because if everyone owns 100% of a watermelon, there is no clear rule stating that one of them can’t just eat the whole thing. And how do fifty different people, with their own brains and imagination, all decide and agree on what to do with the factory? The problem is not in the statement itself. The statement is fine. It is the ACT of socialism, not the statement that has a problem.
But that just says that each person is entitled to 1/50th of profits and, should it be agreed to sell the factory (to whom? It is owned by everyone) they all receive 1/50th the payment. Since that last part clearly is outside the bounds of any socialist ideal, I will stick to the first. Ownership of a share of profits has nothing to do with the ownership of the factory itself. You could be a stakeholder, what good is that if fifty people still have an equal say in what should be done with the factory? How is it decided how much each person’s share is to be divided up? I mean, the guy doing all the heavy lifting might claim he works harder, so he needs to save more of his share to buy those extra calories. Blam! Socialism falls flat on its face! At any rate, the point being that owning the means of production doesn’t mean shares. It means actual physical ownership of the factory. It’s the difference between orders handed down from a CEO to slow production while some machines are being repaired and simply deciding “Eh, I’ve worked the stamping machine enough for the day. Think I’ll pop upstairs and do maintenance now.”
So a factory (or anything else) for that matter can (must?) not be owned by more than one person? Is there no such thing as a 50% ownership in a hot-dog stand or 0.0000003% ownership in IBM or a factory?
I’ll admit, that wasn’t a very good way to word it, but what he’s getting at is that you can’t have factories owned equally by everyone. It was touched on before, but the main problem with this idea of everything being owned by everyone equally is that there wouldn’t be anyone to organize anything. Sure companies can have multiple owners owning different size portions…but find me a company where everyone involved (including the workers) owns exactly the same amount as everyone else. It doesn’t work like that. And even if you made it that way, like saying “everyone has equal ownership” overnight…what happens when the guy on the manufacturing floor decides his job is too hard, and he should be a manager in the office upstairs? Who is to say he shouldn’t be? He’s just as much an owner as anyone else.
Oh, so then we’ll just vote on who should do what job. Even putting aside the obvious obstacles that would come with that and assuming a concensus can be reached, how effecient of an arrangement are they going to come to? And let’s even leap farther and assume they come to the most effiecient arrangement possible and everyone is working in the exact position that maximizes productivity…What happens when someone decides he’s working harder than someone else? And what about all the other people who don’t work at the factory? Do they own it too? Or are we just talking about the people who work at the company?
Even if the claim is that “the factories will be owned by the workers who work in them” and we don’t go with the insane notion that everything is owned by everyone, you still run into problems that completely break the whole system.
And the other point that was raised was another important one: Where will new factories come from? If everyone owns everything equally, how the hell is it ever going to be decided what resources should be put to what use? How will anything ever get produced? And let’s suppose someone does bite the bullet and works hard and creates something new from some of the resources…what’s to stop one person from saying the guy “stole” from the collective by doing what he wanted and creating or consuming something for himself? After all, he took and used everyone’s resources as if they were his. What’s to stop someone (or thousands of people) from claiming the fruit of the first man’s labor is theirs? After all, everyone owns everything equally…so whatever that guy made, I have a claim to. And in fact, that guy took those resources without my permission. Those resources are part mine, and I didn’t give him the okay to use them. In fact, a lot of people didn’t. That guy stole from us. He has given up his right to the property. He has no claim to anything he has made with these stolen resources.
The notion that the world could exist without private property is quite possibly the most insane idea ever contrived. And notice how it stays alive…the proponants basically never get past stage 1. In fact, they don’t even get to stage 1…they stop at just the idea “everyone own’s everything equally.” They don’t even consider what that would look like…let alone how to get to that point or how it would operate or progress. Ideas this illogical always begin in the middle. They offer absolutely no explanation of how it would work or how a society could even get to that point.
"So a factory (or anything else) for that matter can (must?) not be owned by more than one person? Is there no such thing as a 50% ownership in a hot-dog stand or 0.0000003% ownership in IBM or a factory? "
Don’t be silly. That’s making the assumption that part ownership in a business is equivalent to ownership of the physical properties thereof. You can own a 20% stake in Fatface Hot Dogs, but that does not mean you own A) the hot dog stand, B) the ingredients, C) the cooking implements, D) any real, tangible piece of the property. And those situations in which you have two equal shareholders are always mitigated by lengthy contractual stipulations, in order to ensure both parties are satisfied beforehand with the terms of how disputes are to be settled. Where is such a method of dispute settlement when you have one hundred people each with a one percent ownership that somehow, inexplicably equates to “everyone owns everything”? And, quite frankly, do you want to be the lawyer drawing up that contract? The majority shareholder concept is very important in making sure things can actually be put to use. I do not say, nor do I suggest, that a business cannot have more than one owner. What I suggest is that someone has to be able to make decisions, bottom line, with what to do with the resources.
Socialism is definitely collectivisation of the means of production (that is community ownership with use rights being that of the producer); social democracy on the other hand, is nationalisation.
Some socialists believe in a state as a transition phase; others don’t (anarchists).
Someone said that such a community would 100% taxation which is not right considering that (depending on the brand of socialism) the producers are free to distribute their goods to community as they please; but they cannot expect a fair share of the general produce of society should they not. There are different mechanisms used to allocate resources and for society to calculate a producer’s productivity.
Correct. Part ownership means exactly: part ownership in all assets and part responsibility in all liabilities of the entity owned. What’s silly about this?
In the Articles of Incorporation? Or whichever contract/document the shareholders have voluntarily consented to?
No, but I’m sure you’ve heard of corporate law/lawyers.
Good.
Sure. But that’s just your personal opinion (preference). An entity (business, factory, partnership, co-op) owned by shareholders is free to voluntarily organize itself under whatever rules it wishes. What interest would the owners have in choosing rules that would be detrimental to the value of their entity?
There’s nothing inherently wrong with an entity being co-owned by individuals working in it. Actually it’s quite common today, and I don’t see why it also wouldn’t exist in a free market. The problem with socialists and “left” ideas is that they exclusively “allow” (prefer, impose, enforce?) only such instances of ownership, whereas capitalism “allows” any exchange and coordination of capital as long as it’s voluntary.