Guide to creating a socialist utopia

Actually in socialism human sloth as well as other more honest personal shortcomings tend to come heavily into play. Greed being more how you jump start the thing.

I'm not sure what the ratio of naive to greed is in any individual. But I think a large chunk of the thinking behind supporters of socialism is that they understand the following of the proposed system:

Step 1: Steal everyone's retirement accounts
Step 2: Whatever. Who cares? I just scored granny's retirement account!

I know their rhetoric says they're taking from "the rich" But the reality they want to ignore is that while the wealthy do indeed have much more stock ownership than the average person, as a group the Romney's of the US own a small fraction of the total stock holdings here. So you're mostly talking retirement accounts. I'm not sure how little they control, however the top 1% of wealth holders only control about a third of the stocks. And the top 1% of wealth holders is going to contain a whole lot of older middle class persons who built up that wealth through their careers and are now near or in retirement. So the sort of people being referred to as "the rich" are going to account for much less than a third of the "means of production".

 

?!?!???? It's like you posted the video but didn't watch it. This is a villiage, in China, that is in crippling debt, as opposed to the rest of the country which is awash in foreign funds, and even then while exploiting the oppressed workers of China (China limits movement in the country, making people work in crappy conditions as illigal immegrants within their own nation. Hence why much of the rest of the country is awash is said foerign money.)

But more importantly, and this is key, where in there is it saying anything about having problems due to being in a capitalistic country?

Socialism usually fails horribly. There is a chance some particular forumlation might not. But does it have some miracle threshold at 300 million people? If not why not just get together with some buddies and create it on a small scale? Or go join a co-op. Certainly easier than overthrowing a government I would think!

The point is before anybody should consider joining yet another socialist revolution after the others ended in disaster, why not take advantage of the freedoms of this country and just make a small version?

Again, people have tried that numerous times for a while. But the bottom line is that when people are able to just walk away from the system, they choose to do so, and it dries up. But maybe, if you really consider the failings of the past, you'll have the magic combination that spreads.

I'm not sure what you're referring to or what they were occused of. Wal-mart is by no means a monopoly, and if anything undercuts prices to get business as opposed to engaging in price fixing schemes.

First of all interesting video. Though not the important caveats such as having to give them enough money to take worrying about it off the table. But the video is correct in that rewards in workplace environment count significantly as a reward.

But again, I don't think you've addressed what you're actually advocating for. There just aren't restrictions on creating businessness models without bosses. You actually do get some companies like that.

You keep saying you aren't trying to take away people's freedoms, but what don't we have right now?

 

I appreciate the non-hostile, non-animosity on your part. Makes for the nicer and better discussions. Unlike most on this forum, you seem capable of a civil discussion.

Like I said: “Obviously, it's difficult to conduct such a collectivist economy within an ocean of capitalism which brings forth all kinds of difficulties (some named already in the video).” A number of difficulties arise when attempting to conduct a socialistic-like mini-economy in the midst of an ocean of capitalism. This amounts to having to play by the rules of capitalism, which is obviously unfavourable to such a collectivist economy. Financial debt wouldn't exist in a socialist economy and hence this problem can be attributed to having to conduct such an economy but play by the rules of capitalism. Moreover, the threat of bankruptcy exists in any business (including a collectivist business or even a town like Nanjie).

If the bankruptcy of one socialistic-like town in a market economy proves socialism does not work, then do all bankruptcies of private businesses prove capitalism cannot work? No. This report was from 2008, it was reported that the town would succumb to private capitalism. In 2011 it was reported it managed to significantly diminish its debt from 250$ million to 15$ via negotiations with banks and public officials.

It highlighted problems, including debt and shortage of labour. If all of China, or all of the world, operated a moneyless economy then there wouldn't be a need to hire extra labourers to keep earning revenue to import goods (the video shows a beer factory used to earn money, this money is then used to buy goods on the Chinese market). And obviously there wouldn't be any debt problem.

Because not everyone has the financial means to buy their way out of capitalism. Moreover, small co-ops still have to compete meaning there will still be bankruptcies, poverty, and unemployment, as well as immense inequality. For example, if Nintendo was a cooperative every single employee would receive $1million dollar annually as salary, whereas coffee peasant cooperatives of the Zapatistas in Chiapas would still be dirt poor.

There are those who try to do this, but again, they have to play by the rules of capitalism which is hugely unfavourable. Moreover, if too many people want to live and work cooperatively then there will be too little cooperatives for them to be employed. After all, you can't create cooperatives at an indefinite rate, especially since small businesses can't compete with multinational corporations (e.g. cooperatives wouldn't be able to employ sweatshop labour and would thus be outcompeted like private small businesses are today).

I should hope so. The Zapatista uprising gave me hope at least, unlike other attempted socialist revolutions there was little bloodshed, no new oppressive regime, and it allowed for genuinely democratic cooperatives and communes.

There aren't any legal restrictions, but there are financial ones. I consider workers' self-management to be essential to one's freedom. (As hierarchy and freedom are mutually exclusive for the most, therefore the hierarchical business model limits freedom for the workers, in that there is no democratic decision making--in essence, private businesses are tiny-private dictatorships). Therefore I consider workers' self-management and common ownership of the means of production a right, and not something you first need to buy (i.e. a privilege).

See above.

 

I just have a moment, but in all your post I'm not seeing what exactly you're advocating for.

What it seems like you're saying is that democratic socialism is vastly morally superior, but cannot coexist or compete with capitalism. Therefore what is need is to:

-conquer the entire planet
-impose democratic socialism
-not allow those "democracies" to decide to do anything aside from the proscribed model of organization

I'm not sure that's what you really mean, but if it isn't you'll have to elaborate on what it is you're even proposing.

 

"Democratic socialism" is rather a misnomer as all socialisms advocate democracy (whether it translated well into practice in Marxist-Leninist states is another discussion). I advocate the self-emancipation of the working class by socialising the means of production and organising a network of self-administrated communes.

I want the working class to develop class consciousness which will motivate them to emancipate themselves by expropriating their workplaces. I want this to be organised from below, not from above (hence, self-emancipation). Therefore socialism is not imposed (although from the perspective of the capitalist class it will certainly seem so), the working class will need to do it themselves. Like capitalism once did, socialism will spread globally--I think.

I don't think these democracies will decide anything else (of course they should be allowed to if they wanted to). Just like workers in cooperatives today don't vote their own rights away and privatise their collectively owned business, nor do people in liberal democracies vote back feudalism, and so I don't expect workers in the future--once socialism is attained--to vote back a system which had previously induced millions in poverty, allowed for great financial and social insecurity, and left workers disenfranchised.

 

I think you're missing a couple things at least in regards to modern day America.

#1 Regarding

The reality over the past decades is that they do actually do that. Maybe not the "workers" running around with machineguns in some third world country. But people in the US who had been in cooperatives have tended to privatise. I suppose I have more exposure to midwest cooperatives. I think any successful model for anything resembling what you're talking about is going to have to build up from a serious and thoughtful look at the ashes off all the failed attempts before.

Though in the case of the US I wouldn't call those midwest cooperatives "failures" as they were still viable businesses. I think it's more that people would rather cash out their stake. Though that's just my impression.

#2 I think you're completely ignoring the concept of the middle class, which is only looking to become more significant as "personal capital" becomes more important, and the "means of productions" sometimes ceases to exist in a meaningful way physically. For example I've got a friend working for a software company that works from home, just using the computer he had anyway.

But the big issue is that it isn't a matter of a massive working class going up against a numerically tiny but wealthy elite.

Rather you've got this massive middle class. Not just small business owners and farmers anymore. Via stocks and such, your common professional either already has or anticipates having an investment portfolio on the order of or greater than the fraction of the company that would be theirs under your system. And they likely have grandparents living on their capital investments (retirement accounts). So they feel they stand to lose in all this.

Beyond that in the new corporate democracy they do not want to trade their current boss for the head of the janitors union or have to decide if they want to play for the favor of the Secritarycrats or the HVACicans. Etc.

The bottom line being in a class war the "working class" is probably outnumbered, which means they can't acheive your proposed ends in a democratic manner if they wanted to.

 

The only way you could have a real socialist utopia is to ruffie the entire country then upload them into the Matrix.

Democracy doesn't work well with society in general why do you think it will work well in business?

Social connections don't select great leaders nor do the mass majority of people made up of those who are less than intelligent enough to make any decisions about society. Popularity is not excellence.

Now if we could move forward in improving society leaders of all types should need to measure up to standards including but not limited to measurements of intelligence.

 

Its going to fall on deaf ears sunnyside. I pointed out pages ago that the co-op model cant function in a free market. Yes you know as well as I do that many co-opts have elected to privatize over the last few decades. People with jobs dont really care about ownership. Its only have nots who like Tim who care. They are jealous. They want a piece of the pie. Once you have it you find that you don't really want it anymore. Okay you are in the co-op you own the company woopidy do. You have to put food on your kids table. That is all the matters. And your co-op is inherently inefficient and is getting throttled in the markets. Revenue is low and because of that wages are low and you are worried about being fired. Who the (*)(*)(*)(*) cares if they own a (*)(*)(*)(*)ty company that cant pay them a good wage!

 

Careful with your phrasing there! The bits about feeding your kids and getting fired evoke feelings of corporate espionage and other schenanigans where people were forced to give up their stakes or starve.

I don't know this situations for every co-op, but by and large that's not how things went down. Often I think it's just that someone would rather either be more diversified than having all their stake in a chunk of a single enterprise, and/or they'd like to have a sports car in their garage.

Also I think I forgot to mention it, but I find that the democratically managed businesses typically create the equivalents of CEO, CFO, and managers as an early order of businesses. Retaining something like a legislative function and the ability to replace upper management, but the bosses are still around and highly paid.

 

hmmmm ok, so who/why would anyone want to create a job for you? Or, will you just force people to do that too? This is why it doesn't work....period.

 

You make no sense.

 

Why not? How could that not make sense?

 

Then the absence of market relations in communism would invalidate this I suppose.

The issue is not the means of production per se, but the means of producing wealth. Irrespective of whether this has a physical form.

Perhaps, but capitalism exists beyond the US and the West. In any case, socialism seems to be on the rise in Europe, and the Japanese Communist Party as well (although this party is very reformist)

?What do you mean?

Working class refers to any person depending on selling his labour-power, this includes most of the middle class. There is also the theory of the “labour aristrocracy”, stressing that revolution should begin in developing nations and spread from there. My socialism is not national, and in all likeliness if there was to be a socialist revolution it would begin in Latin America (or perhaps Iberia).

Not an argument.

Workplace democracy is proven to enhance productivity. Workplace democracy abolishes the business-dictatorship.

We're not advocating representative workplace democracy, but participatory workplace democracy.

You include yourself into the ranks of the intelligentsia?

That makes no sense. Your question presupposes wage-labour, while workers' self-management negates wage-labour.

 

That's an odd point to make. I mean yes, a sufficient number of people pointing weapons at a sufficient number of other people could get them to do what they want.

However in the context of a a method spreading peacfully, people have to want to do it. My point was that in the US the history is clearly that people generally prefir NOT to be in cooperatives when given the choice. Therefore spreading either has to be a small minority using violence on the majority OR you need to seriously evaluate why things happened the way they have and what you offer that is different such that a majority would want to go along with it.

Before I continue let me remind you that:

While there are other types, the chief non-physical form of producing wealth is what I would refer to as personal capital. This would be college educations, training, and generally skills of value. (The second most common is intellectual property in the form of things like patents, which is another issue you'd have to address. )

Anyway back to the issue of classes. In modern vernacular the "working class" refers roughly to those who perform unskilled labor. Janitors, low end secretaries, burger flippers, low skill assembly line workers, cashiers, and jobs of that nature. This parrallels the Marxist definition pretty well I think as the proletariat are definied by having no capital.

The middle class refers roughly to those who own small businesses or have valuable skills (personal capital as discusses earlier as well as actual capital in the form of stocks). This corresponds to Marx's "petit bourgeoisie" who have capital, but they have to perform labor with it as opposed to just sitting back and living off their capital.

Marx appreciated that this class would tend to oppose his ideas, but belived they would dwindle away to nothing.

In the US at least they haven't, so you need to address them.

I was trying to play on words combining "secretary" and "democrats" to refer to the parties and special interest groups that form in virtually every democratic system that has ever existed. You like to talk about being free of bosses. However the middle class might well find themselves getting bossed around instead by a large "working class" special interest group and possible those that rise to power within those voting blocs. The middle class is NOT going to want that.

As I'm sure you've noticed those terms are horribly overused, misused, and abused. The flavor I'm getting from the Europeans socialists is more advocacy for welfare states as opposed to what you're talking about. Though I think some parites might hold that up as an ideal, they aren't being voted in to jump to that point.

Also there's quite a question as to whether anything they're trying to do will be functional or sustainable long term, and if it will give them what they want. The bait and switch of workers utopia for economic distaster and/or oppression is why people keep brining up the USSR and China.

Those areas would be more likely due to having more foreign stuff to steal and less of a middle class. Although you can steal foreign assests using any form of government and economy via some flavor of nationalization. I suppose socialistic rhetoric would help with the theft however.

I have to explain this tendency to people who think the united states should achieve oil independence from the middle east by investing in South American oil fields. While it seems like investing in someone would make them tend to like you, in reality you're bound to just cause a theft oriented revolution and the creation of a new government that hates you.

 

In my opinion, our Founding Fathers wisely enumerated only sufficient Socialism, to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

 

What's exactly wrong with capitalism again? What's wrong to the point of turning our backs to the most successful economic system mankind has stumbled upon?

And most important of all why would people ever choose socialism/communism over capitalism? If capitalism has faults, which is bound to have, why don't we look forward to repair, overcome those, possibly creating other faults in the long run true, but that's what life is all about. The Socialism utopia will be bound to the same principles, it has and it will always have faults which will need to be sought after.

No system is perfect, but Capitalism is adequate to the human condition. We're born different and capitalism respects that differences and that same differences enrich life, social and economic wise.

Socialism has always been imposed on the people by force, never has it won an election, people do not want to live in this "utopia" not out of ignorance but because they've chose not to.

Let us improve capitalism and stop wasting time with 19th century "failured" ideas.

 

I am willing to kill to protect my freedom and property from people like you who would take it away.

Are you willing to kill me to get your socialist utopia?

 

No. Unlike some people, I am not a monster with such a low value of human life as to think it acceptable to murder someone over a perceived, non-existent "attack" on abstract ideas.

 

Our Founding Fathers ordained and established a form of socialist Utopia which may allow us to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, if only we can be moral enough to bear true witness to their secular and temporal Commandments.

 

Well I found the method that is guaranteed to work 100% of the time.

First step, start up your Socialist Utopia

Second step, after it fails, move on.

 

Over two hundred years and counting on still making progress.

 

Firstly, I don't think it's actually your property, I think the notion of people "owning" things they don't use and aren't going to use personally makes no sense. I'm not going to argue about it here because I don't actually care enough and I know we both have our own opinions.

I don't want to kill anyone. I don't even think violent revolution is necessary in developed and relatively open countries like ours. If we do have a revolution the idea is that it'll be popular enough that the rich won't be able to do anything as we'll have the majority of police and the army of our side.

 

Odd you've suddenly jumped back in to respond to some flamebait.

Anyway Tim Cornelis seems to have retreated, and RedRepublic doesn't seem to like to think. But I wonder if you might actually be up for some discussion and maybe could pick up where Tim left off. I think you're closely aligned enough to have my comments apply to your post.


http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...ating-socialist-utopia-22.html#post1061404131

Or before that for background

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...53767-guide-creating-socialist-utopia-21.html

 

I don't think you want me. I'm still a noob to socialism.

 

Utopias are possible only in the fevered brow of those to young to understand that we are not borgs or ants and what is utopia to one person may well be a fate worse than death to another.