What is socialism ?

[Dominick]

The word 'socialism' gets misused to an ever increasing extent. For instance, there is nothing socialist about Obama's policies. There is also hardly any true socialism left in Europe. The so-called socialist parties of the UK (New Labour), Holland (PvdA), Belgium (SP.a), France (PS), Germany (SPD), etc. have all long ago abandoned true socialism and are, especially on economical matters, predominantly center-right and mostly in accordance with classical liberalism.

When I was looking for a genuine socialist party with a website in English (to accomodate the monolingually ;)) imagine my surprise when the most genuine true socialist party I could find was the American Socialist Party (http://socialistparty-usa.org/).

I urge the reader to read both the principles (http://socialistparty-usa.org/principles.html) and the entire platform (http://socialistparty-usa.org/platform/) of this party in order to get a fair idea of what socialism really is.

Nevertheless, a few crucial points:
Most importantly, socialism is about equality. And that's without any if's or but's.
It's thus entirely logical that its stance on migration is this :
Immigration
The Socialist Party works to build a world in which everyone will be able to freely move across borders, to visit and to live wherever they choose.
That's everyone, regardless of race, gender and nationality.
This stance is almost the opposite of what supposed 'socialists' such as Obama or his European equivalents profess.

Another fine example of the wide gap between professed and real socialists is this:
9. We call for the ultimate replacement of the police with community residents trained in conflict resolution who live in and serve the community under community control.
Blair et al were/are staunch advocates of classic Law and Order from outside the community, established out of people who intentionally interact as little as possible with those they have to 'control' (cf. riot gear).

And when has Obama ever advocated things as :

2. We call for worker and community ownership and control of corporations within the framework of a decentralized and democratically determined economic plan.

3. We call for a minimum wage of $15 per hour, indexed to the cost of living.

Never I think, did he ?

There's much more but it's all in the platform and principles.

PS I'm not advocating it, merely showing what it is.

[Michael]

One issue that I find interesting is the ideological conflict between socialism and communism that shows up whenever one tries to explore the meaning of socialism.

That is to say, in pure communist theory, the government is always a pawn of the capitalist oppressors and thus, government is held to be evil and that ideal social organization must revolve around people and non-government institutions.

However, in most socialist theory, the government is held to be an agent of the people and is to be used to subsume the role of the private capitalist (nationalization of industry).

What amuses me the most, is the mix-mashed way the two theories are held similtaneously, with elements of one mixed with elements of the other. The American Socialist Party seems to be a good example of this phenomenum.

* * *

If someone ever invents an actual 'socialist mode of production' then I think socialism will win the debate. Until then, socialism is nothing more than a political policy laid on top of a capitalist system of production.

Question, why won't socialists or communists admit that the system of production that they favor is in fact, the capitalist mode of production? The reality of this screams from the American Socialist Party manifesto.

[Dominick]

One issue that I find interesting is the ideological conflict between socialism and communism that shows up whenever one tries to explore the meaning of socialism.

That is to say, in pure communist theory, the government is always a pawn of the capitalist oppressors and thus, government is held to be evil and that ideal social organization must revolve around people and non-government institutions.

However, in most socialist theory, the government is held to be an agent of the people and is to be used to subsume the role of the private capitalist (nationalization of industry).

What amuses me the most, is the mix-mashed way the two theories are held similtaneously, with elements of one mixed with elements of the other. The American Socialist Party seems to be a good example of this phenomenum.

* * *

If someone ever invents an actual 'socialist mode of production' then I think socialism will win the debate. Until then, socialism is nothing more than a political policy laid on top of a capitalist system of production.

Question, why won't socialists or communists admit that the system of production that they favor is in fact, the capitalist mode of production? The reality of this screams from the American Socialist Party manifesto.
What exactly do you mean by 'capitalist mode of production' ? It seems to me that you usurp any existing and even any conceivable mode of production as 'capitalist' and then blame others for not coming up with an alternative to something that is already all-inclusive ? :confused:

[Michael]

Capitalist mode of production is where the capitalist provides the tools and the materials and pays wages to laborers to do the work - the capitalist then owns the result of the production process. That is the capitalist mode of production.

Socialism tends to appropriate this same model of production merely substituting the government, a committee or some collective to serve the role of 'capitalist'. The game is the same.

[Dominick]

Capitalist mode of production is where the capitalist provides the tools and the materials and pays wages to laborers to do the work - the capitalist then owns the result of the production process. That is the capitalist mode of production.

Socialism tends to appropriate this same model of production merely substituting the government, a committee or some collective to serve the role of 'capitalist'. The game is the same.
But if you substitute anything at all for the role of 'capitalist' then there is no alternative possible, is there ? Then you simply equate any production at all to capitalist production. The adjective 'capitalist' becomes meaningless and 'capitalist production' a tautology.

[Michael]

But if you substitute anything at all for the role of 'capitalist' then there is no alternative possible, is there ? Then you simply equate any production at all to capitalist production. The adjective 'capitalist' becomes meaningless and 'capitalist production' a tautology.
Not at all.

The feudal mode of production did not fall under that model. That was the old mode of production mostly replaced by the capitalist one.

And people's failure to come up with a replacement for the capitalist mode of production is not my fault - or capitalism's fault.

Fact is, if you just change the personality of the capitalist, there is no real change in the mode of production - which is why I'm so critical of socialism susbsituting governments, committees or cooperative councils for the role of capitalist - that tends to preserve the worse element of capitalism (wage slavery) without the primary benefit of capitalism (market allocation of resources and market efficiency). Socialism retains wage-slavery and just gets rid of the efficiency of the capitalist.

Now, if socialism could do away with the hated 'wage slavery' which according to Marx and most socialist theory as the real true evil, then you'd have a new mode of production. But if wages are being paid, you are looking at the capitalist mode of production, plain and simple.

[Michael]

The socialist project has been betrayed and must be reinvented in the 21st century

As he assesses the international crisis and the proposals made by the Left to meet a fast deteriorating global situation, Eric Toussaint distinguishes between two very different kinds of Left that suggest different ways of of resolving the interconnected crises of capitalism.

Source (http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1646)

Betrayed? Seems like this is a common refrain from 'failure' - to blame the failure on 'betrayal'. I'm not buying it.

If the socialist has failed, that was due to socialism's failings, not any kind of betrayal.

Same goes for neoliberalism or neoconservativism - they have failed due to their own failings, not any kind of betrayal.

Seems that ideologues on both sides are pushing the 'betrayal' trope. I can't say I'm too surprised.

So does anyone find anything in the linked article that could possibly construed as 'reasonably hopeful' for the socialist movement or is it all as downhill as it looks?

[Dominick]

Fact is, if you just change the personality of the capitalist, there is no real change in the mode of production - which is why I'm so critical of socialism susbsituting governments, committees or cooperative councils for the role of capitalist - that tends to preserve the worse element of capitalism (wage slavery) without the primary benefit of capitalism (market allocation of resources and market efficiency). Socialism retains wage-slavery and just gets rid of the efficiency of the capitalist.

Now, if socialism could do away with the hated 'wage slavery' which according to Marx and most socialist theory as the real true evil, then you'd have a new mode of production. But if wages are being paid, you are looking at the capitalist mode of production, plain and simple.
So a society without money couldn't possibly have a capitalist mode of production, right ?

[Michael]

So a society without money couldn't possibly have a capitalist mode of production, right ?
I suppose that is a reasonable deduction. Capitalism couldn't function without money/currency.

[Dominick]

I suppose that is a reasonable deduction. Capitalism couldn't function without money/currency.
Your answer is bookmarked for ulterior use :sneaky::angel:

[Michael]

Your answer is bookmarked for ulterior use :sneaky::angel:
I should hope so! :)

As it was, the question itself seemed rather lame. I figured you were up to something. :sneaky: