this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023
1140 points (93.7% liked)
Memes
45731 readers
1193 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The ultimate issue with socialism is that the people are giving up economic power to the state. In a capitalist system, private ownership provides a check on the power of the state. You may claim that you are anti-state all you want but power consolidates. It does in a capitalist system as well. Government provides a check on private power there as well which is unacknowledged by you. What is the check on government power in a socialist system? What is the actual mechanism that ensures that one party does not become entrenched or the majority will not vote themselves a favorable position?
What is the recourse as a minority when the government decides you get less? What was the recourse for Muslims or Ukrainians when the party decided that Moscow was more important for food?
What is the recourse for Chinese minorities when the CCP decides enough capitalism to increase production is a benefit but not if they go against the party? (Fascism)
In a liberal system these types of events can still lead to violence and losers but there is an out for them. They have mobility and can leave the localized oppression. They purchase food from elsewhere or grow their own and not be beholden to the state.
More importantly, it provides competition and consequences for the state when it inevitably fails in some way. When the state fails in a socialist system, revolution happens because it is the only recourse. Then it is either genocide or radical change. Sure, you can say the state will never fail. Never is a long time and the state is made up of people.
The purge was not a joke and I don't find it funny. I think your ideology should be as unwelcome as fascism because it is just as oppressive at its core economic level. From an economics and power standpoint, there is literally no difference between full government economic power and government economic power that uses corporations as proxy. Arguably, full government economic power is worse. There's nothing inherent about socialism that says there is no racial component and you almost guarantee it when you institute majority rule and do not allow dissent.
People are gaining economic power as opposed to Capitalism, the state must be of the workers to be Socialism. I'm arguing for democratic control of production, rather than allowing it to be decided by a tiny group of people with little to no accountability a la Capitalism. The checks and balances are democracy, which doesn't exist in Capitalist production.
Why don't you have a problem with the Benghal famine then, or the Irish Great Famine? Does famine only matter if tools are collectively owned, rather than privately? This is an utter non-point, and is why democracy is important to add to production.
In liberal Capitalism, there is precisely no mobility for Workers that they would not have in Socialism. In Socialism, they can actually directly impact production.
You keep attaching mysticism to Socialism, claiming it is inevitable to fail. Purely vibes.
All in all, you're incredibly wrong. I'm arguing that workers collectively and democratically control productuon, rather than working for mini-dictators. Your argument is that mini-dictators are good, and people should have less voice, then you add random strawman arguments and claim genocide must happen because you're anti-democracy, and equate democracy to genocide. It's absurd.
I do have an issue with those famines. Famines resulting from the taking of private property by the existing power structure are perfect examples of how government control of private property results in famine for minorities.
I would prefer to not institutionalize it. Just my opinion.
If you agree that letting the hands of the few impact the many is a bad thing, then why are you in favor of limiting control of Production to the hands of the few, rather than the many?
Genuinely. If a government was democratically accountable, at all levels, why do you believe this is worse than Capitalist institutions that by definition are not democratically accountable?
Please, answer that question, if nothing else.
You are limiting the control of production to that which the few in government decide instead of literally anyone doing it. You seem to think that ownership in the West is limited strictly to the privileged and that labor is not compensated. That is where true leftist efforts have failed throughout history. The reason that laborers, engineers, and farmers in the West consistently vote against government economic control and never revolt is because they are the most compensated in society on average. This is especially true in times of hardship. The reason why people are so invested in their system is because 66% of people own their own homes. Anyone can buy enough machinery to make things and there is a robust market for handcrafted goods competing with those that are mass-produced. Additionally, no one company controls over 30% of the market in any sector so monopolies are not an issue in the eurocentric West.
The real issue with capitalism at its base is to keep a level playing field and healthy markets. That includes banning anticompetitive behaviors and good governance along with programs (That still use contracts at their base ultimately) to address externalities. The equivalent issue on the socialist side is to centrally plan literally everything as a state-sponsored monopoly that you just trust has your best interests at heart.
A government that controls production cannot be held accountable by those who need it to survive. It is a power imbalance baked into the system at a governance level. Additionally and most importantly, there is no counter to the power of government should it start to slide away from democratic accountability beyond the dissolution of the system as a whole. This is very consistent with history.
I have so far addressed all points so I am not sure why you are suggesting that I would not. I am starting to run out of energy here though. The burden of proof should not be on the existing proven system but instead that of the proposed radical change. An example of this would be the UBI tests that are occurring in various areas. In many of ways they are failing but at least they are trying to provide some proof before forcing through changes that have already been tried and failed in multiple countries and societies throughout the last hundred years; each progressing from trying decentralization, to consolidation, to ultimately a loss of trust in society in the centralized government and change back to private ownership.
No, I am advocating for democratic control, not giving all control to one or two dudes. That's what you're putting in my mouth. For example, I'm arguing for the factory to be owned by the Workers, and managed by whoever they vote for. You're the one adding the caveat of an anti-democratic central god-planner, which is nonsense.
The rest of your comment is you continuing this nonsense, so maybe I'll break it into something simple and bite-sized for you.
Factory 1: Capitalist owner, workers have no say except to leave.
Factory 2: Workers are the Owners, elect a manager, and said manager can be deposed by the Workers at will.
Why do you think having Factory 1 is better, and why do you think I'm advocating for Factory 2 to have no democracy whatsoever? Why do you think it's impossible to have a federated network of Factory 2s, that are all democratically accountable, rather than someone at the top of all of Factory 2s and no democracy?
If you keep avoiding this question and intentionally misrepresenting my point, you just further prove that you don't actually care to discuss anything.
You could even combine the efforts of the individual workers unions (Soviets) and address the production and starvation issues that the union of the soviets have been experiencing... Oh wait, that's exactly what happened. This is why these arguments get dismissed out of hand. You are rewording very old arguments and claiming they are new ideas. I am not avoiding your question. I am addressing it with history.
The big difference between workers-led organizations in a consolidated capitalist system and a socialist one is worker choice and consent. In a socialist system, they have none or it fails very quickly.
We've already explained that your claim that workers owning tools = nobody works = starvation is pure mysticism. When pressed for why, you said people would work less automatically, which is wrong, especially considering co-operative farming has worked for as long as humanity has existed, and continues to do so. Additionally, you claimed they would be less stable, which was also proven false with my example of Worker co-operatives.
I'm not asking for the Soviet Union, you keep pushing that in there as though it's the only way, and pretend that every problem the Soviet Union had must be repeated if Workers share tools. Its an utter fallacy.
Workers cannot consent to Capitalism, it exists regardless. That's like saying peasants consented to Feudalism.
The very fact that you deliberately refused to answer why Factory 1, with the Capitalist ownership, was better than Factory 2 with democratic ownership, and instead dodged, proves me exactly correct: you have nothing to stand on and merely reflexively reject everything I say. You're no different from a Monarchist during the French Revolution saying that workers wouldn't have the ability to choose to be a serf under Capitalism.
Please, explain exactly why the democratically run factory is worse than the undemocratically run factory. If you're going to continue to lie about what I'm saying and make absurd mystical claims, then I suppose I expected too much from an internet stranger.