Support NeoGAF

[Wiktor]

A stopgap before communism and a system where all the companies (or what they produce) are owned supposed to be owned by workers/collective.
Also a system that needs to tolerate bribery, because Jesus hell...you need to bribe people to acomplish anything in socialistic countries.

 

[makingmusic476]

It's pretty bloody obvious, socialism means you like socialising.

I used to be fairly socialist when I was younger but I don't have so much time for partying now I have kids, though they are definitely socialist.

Don't understand why people are against socialism though, basically a bunch of party haters.

 

[GYODX]

Something naive people like to pay lip service to.

 

[Mandelbo]

It's further to the right than communism

 

[Poodlestrike]

I sort of always thought of it as the middle point on the scale.

Laissez faire capitalism------------------------Socialism--------------------------------Communism.

So the government owns some of the means of production, but not all of it. Covers a pretty broad spectrum. By my definition, the US would be socialist just because of the post office.

 

[Platy]

My favorite is mixing socialism with communism

 

[jackissocool]

That's really just capitalism in its Keynesian form, or social democracy.

That's a form of capitalist society where the antagonism between the different classes is being addressed but not in a way that will abolish the class relationship itself, like putting a bandaid on a bleeding gash.

Not a bad thing in of itself, people should strive for better working/living conditions within the current system absolutely.

Communism isn't "everyone shares equally", it's a classless stateless society where production is done on the basis of actual need and not for profit.

You are saving me a lot of effort and heartache, comrade.

I sort of always thought of it as the middle point on the scale.

Laissez faire capitalism------------------------Socialism--------------------------------Communism.

So the government owns some of the means of production, but not all of it. Covers a pretty broad spectrum. By my definition, the US would be socialist just because of the post office.

 

[Valhelm]

How would you make capitalism, a system that embodies a fundamental antagonism, fair?
Redistribution could make it fair, in the short run but soon you'll run back into the same problem: workers are dependent on capital in order to work and live.

This is an absurd view of capitalism. The only antagonism occurs from unchecked, libertarian capitalism. If our governments ensure that corporations and similar fictive bodies are no freer from the law than individuals are, and actually work to protect the rights of workers, then there is no exploitation.

Ensuring that unions have more power would also do a ton of good to reduce exploitative corruption.

 

[Umibozu]

Hm does Canada fall under democratic socialism because of our support for universal healthcare?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada

yes. Canada is run under a form of socialism, but it is slowly moving away with the privatisation of some of its core industries. Some examples are oil, airline and hydro.

 

[Kosmokrator]

You are saving me a lot of effort and heartache, comrade.

Just fighting the good fight, even when it doesn't seem like it's worth it.

This is an absurd view of capitalism. The only antagonism occurs from unchecked, libertarian capitalism. If our governments ensure that corporations and similar fictive bodies are no freer from the law than individuals are, and actually work to protect the rights of workers, then there is no exploitation.

Ensuring that unions have more power would also do a ton of good to reduce exploitative corruption.

You can't get rid of exploitation under capitalism, it is an incipient feature of the production process geared towards valorization. Where do you think the surplus comes from for the expansion of capital? I'll give you a hint, it isn't from the capitalists themselves...

What you're describing is the historical situation directly after the end of the Second World War, a massively expanded production system and a restless working class. Unions were strengthen in order to defuse a potentially explosive social situation, these circumstances came to an end with the Reagan and Thatcher double whammy; now we have (In America at least) a moribund labor movement, mounting public debt created to save banks from themselves, an economy that's barely limping along and no answers going forward.

 

[jackissocool]

This is an absurd view of capitalism. The only antagonism occurs from unchecked, libertarian capitalism. If our governments ensure that corporations and similar fictive bodies are no freer from the law than individuals are, and actually work to protect the rights of workers, then there is no exploitation.

Ensuring that unions have more power would also do a ton of good to reduce exploitative corruption.

The only antagonism occurs in unchecked capitalism? What exactly is unchecked capitalism? Without any government interference? If so, there's plenty of antagonism occurring now in our "checked" capitalism.

The important thing here is that you're misunderstanding the fundamental nature of the relationship between capital and labor. Under capitalism, a small ruling class called owns the means of production. Because everyone else (the workers) don't own productive means, they must turn to the capitalists for the resources to survive. This puts the capitalists in a position of power over the workers, who are coerced by the system to labor for them. Thus, the capitalist takes the lion's share of the profits from labor despite not needing to work - they only need to own. There is no capitalism that doesn't have this antagonism. Workers are exploited because the majority of the value of their work is stolen and given to an entrenched ruling class. This relationship is called many things; I usually go with wage slavery.

Socialism abolishes this antagonism by moving the means of production into the hands of the workers. Thus, there is no exploitation - because the workers democratically control their workplaces, they decide who their bosses are and what they get paid (if they decide to have bosses at all!). Since no owning class is expropriating their labor, they get back the full value of the work they put in, or at least an equitable share with everyone else, since some of the value they generate obviously goes back into the business itself. The important thing is that they have control over their economic situation instead of being manipulated and ruled by powerful interests directly oppose to them.

You say you want more union power? Well unions exist to protect workers from capitalists. Let's just get rid of the capitalists.

 

[Fusebox]

Mandatory tipping is Socialism.

 

[Damaniel]

But he's wrong. He's just liberal calling himself a socialist. He doesn't want to end capitalism. He doesn't want to end private property and completely alter the relationship between labor and capital. All Bernie's gonna accomplish is making the left weak in the long run by being coopted into the very capitalist and bourgeois democratic party.

And this post is why people need to do a better job of explaining what socialism is. This *isn't* socialism, not even close. Too many people confuse socialism (and more specifically democratic socialism) with communism. The average person - especially Fox News viewer - hears 'socialism' and immediately makes a connection to the Soviet Union.

In this type of environment, Bernie Sanders will never be President. He should be, but he'd get whooped by any Republican challenger because he's 'tarnished' himself with the label of socialist. It will be at least a generation before anyone in America takes the idea of democratic socialism seriously.

 

[jackissocool]

And this post is why people need to do a better job of explaining what socialism is. This *isn't* socialism, not even close. Too many people confuse socialism (and more specifically democratic socialism) with communism. The average person - especially Fox News viewer - hears 'socialism' and immediately makes a connection to the Soviet Union.

In this type of environment, Bernie Sanders will never be President. He should be, but he'd get whooped by any Republican challenger because he's 'tarnished' himself with the label of socialist. It will be at least a generation before anyone in America takes the idea of democratic socialism seriously.

I don't know what you're saying. Are you telling me I don't know what socialism means? I can assure, I know what socialism means. Are you saying socialism doesn't need to destroy capitalism?

This thread is going to make my head explode.

 

[faridmon]

I sort of do, but I never say I do. Its better to act like you don't know much and you learn from it!

 

[pgtl_10]

A stopgap before communism and a system where all the companies (or what they produce) are owned supposed to be owned by workers/collective.
Also a system that needs to tolerate bribery, because Jesus hell...you need to bribe people to acomplish anything in socialistic countries.

Cause capitalism has no bribery.

 

[Goddard]

Apparently it is a sentiment that a lot of people on GAF and Reddit thinks is really smart, lol. "Guaranteed Income."

 

[blame space]

lol

 

[Roussow]

Of course.

I watched House of Cards (both original and Netflix iterations) and The Newsroom.

I consider myself quite informed thanks to said programs.

I could practically run for office at this point, I'm far more informed than the current running candidates.

/S(ocialism)

 

[M3d10n]

Line by line:

Things get made because they're profitable yes, but how do you know something is profitable before you've had a chance to sell it? Things get made and then put on the market with the hope of converting value in it's commodity form (the game) for value in its money form. The value produced during the production process is validated as socially necessary AFTER the fact, so you have it backwards. No one knows X game is going to be profitable before it's sold, it could very well be a complete failure, so all of the labor-time expended on the game turns out to be socially useless. This is an example of capitalist production which isn't profitable.

"Good ideas" under capitalism is whatever ideas allow for the reproduction of the labor/capital contradiction and it's ensuing mode of production. These resources you mention is capital, past labor crystalized as value.

In a socialist society people would decide what gets made by their direct participation and control of the production process, they would work and with the time they give they would be allowed to draw from a social fund where they can receive whatever they need commensurate with the amount of work they put in.

There's no reason to think that production of use-values in a socialist society would take the form of bare minimum agrarian subsistence, in the Western world we have reached a level of material development to allow a relatively small number of people to produce the means of subsistence necessary for the rest to live comfortably.

A game isn't a need in the same sense as food or clothing, but people's needs are socially constructed, they change along with the production process, 20 years ago no one needed a phone in their pockets, now no one can do without one.

I dismiss the bureaucratic collectivism of the Soviet bloc on the basis that it was never a socialist project, no matter how hard they tried to dress it up ideologically. And there is no reason to believe a socialism where workers get to participate in what gets made necessarily results in a society that "actively seeks to rob humanity of their potential based on a perception that people should only do the bare minimum to survive."

Honestly, it boils down to whether or not you accept a labor theory of value, which it seems like you don't, so I understand why you see it the way you do.

How would the "price" of the labor spent working on something that didn't exist before, like video games or even mobile phones, be calculated on such system? Or would every hour of labor have the same price, regardless of the perceived utility of what that labor produced? If there isn't a central body unilaterally determining the value of things, wouldn't it end up creating some sort of market?

 

[Sequence Six]

And this post is why people need to do a better job of explaining what socialism is. This *isn't* socialism, not even close. Too many people confuse socialism (and more specifically democratic socialism) with communism. The average person - especially Fox News viewer - hears 'socialism' and immediately makes a connection to the Soviet Union.

In this type of environment, Bernie Sanders will never be President. He should be, but he'd get whooped by any Republican challenger because he's 'tarnished' himself with the label of socialist. It will be at least a generation before anyone in America takes the idea of democratic socialism seriously.

So tell me

What's the difference between socialism and communism?

 

[jackissocool]

So tell me

What's the difference between socialism and communism?

I can tell you. Socialism is worker ownership of the means of production. It requires an end to capitalism and abolishing private property.

Communism is the final stage of socialism. It is a classless, moneyless, stateless society based on direct democracy. It requires post-scarcity (or near it, at least) to exist.

 

[Sequence Six]

I can tell you. Socialism is worker ownership of the means of production. It requires an end to capitalism and abolishing private property.

Communism is the final stage of socialism. It is a classless, moneyless, stateless society based on direct democracy. It requires post-scarcity (or near it, at least) to exist.

I honestly knew the answer but I was prodding the other person to see what they thought the difference was given their statement but thanks for the response anyway. (not sarcasm)

 

[ChouGoku]

Its the thing Hitler did and thats why its bad by nature compared to good ol capitalism. National SOCIALISM

Spoiler

/s

 

[akira28]

socialism means you end up in prison

It's the opposite of whatever America stands for, which I believe is freedom, but I'm not exactly sure.

 

[CyclopsRock]

The idea of an end to private property sounds pretty not-very-nice.

 

[makingmusic476]

The idea of an end to private property sounds pretty not-very-nice.

It's important to note that socialists use the term "private property" to refer to property that is privately owned yet used in the socialized/collective production of goods:

Socialists generally view private property relations as limiting the potential of the productive forces in the economy. From this perspective, private property becomes obsolete when it concentrates into centralized, socialized institutions based on private appropriation of revenue until the role of the capitalist becomes redundant. With largely reduced capital accumulation from the original class of owners, private property in the means of production is to be replaced with a free association based on public or common ownership of socialized assets.[8]

In Marxian economics and socialist politics, there is distinction between "private property" and "personal property". The former is defined as the means of production in reference to private ownership over an economic enterprise based on socialized production and wage labor; the latter is defined as consumer goods or goods produced by an individual.[9][10] Prior to the 18th century, private property usually referred to land ownership. When Marx called for the abolition of private property, he was not referring to privately owned personal property such as clothing and furniture that was not used to produce the "social wealth," but to productive property.[11]

They don't mean people shouldn't have a tv or a cat.

 

[CyclopsRock]

It's important to note that socialists use the term "private property" to refer to property that is privately owned yet used in the socialized/collective production of goods:

They don't mean people shouldn't have a tv or a cat.

A) I think "Marxians" should use the same words as everyone else, b) that still sounds pretty not-very-nice and c) the cats would all fuck off somewhere that's actually, like, nice.

 

[Syph Medwes]

I don't know the strict definition, but when I think of how it'd apply to my daily life I think "sacrifice a little bit for the greater good." Pay 10% more at the locally owned grocery store rather than go to Walmart or Target. Buying American made products even if they're inferior. Hiring citizens instead of cheaper foreign labor because it's good for all of us.

I feel like most GAFers use the term to mean "daddy should be watching out for me!!" "How come some people get to be piano players and other people have to be piano movers?!!?" "Shouldn't people with lots of money be giving it to people with little money?" Then they go buy the cheapest shit they can find at WalMart and buy 12 videogames off the latest Steam sale for 90% off because they are entirely ME focused when it comes to their own bank account.

holy shit lol

 

[terrisus]

 

[funkypie]

It means taking my money to fund your lifestyle.

 

[makingmusic476]

It means taking my money to fund your lifestyle.

notsureifserious.jpg

 

[jackissocool]

notsureifserious.jpg

He's presenting Marx's critique of capitalism from the worker's perspective.

 

[Valhelm]

You can't get rid of exploitation under capitalism, it is an incipient feature of the production process geared towards valorization. Where do you think the surplus comes from for the expansion of capital? I'll give you a hint, it isn't from the capitalists themselves...

What you're describing is the historical situation directly after the end of the Second World War, a massively expanded production system and a restless working class. Unions were strengthen in order to defuse a potentially explosive social situation, these circumstances came to an end with the Reagan and Thatcher double whammy; now we have (In America at least) a moribund labor movement, mounting public debt created to save banks from themselves, an economy that's barely limping along and no answers going forward.

The only antagonism occurs in unchecked capitalism? What exactly is unchecked capitalism? Without any government interference? If so, there's plenty of antagonism occurring now in our "checked" capitalism.

The important thing here is that you're misunderstanding the fundamental nature of the relationship between capital and labor. Under capitalism, a small ruling class called owns the means of production. Because everyone else (the workers) don't own productive means, they must turn to the capitalists for the resources to survive. This puts the capitalists in a position of power over the workers, who are coerced by the system to labor for them. Thus, the capitalist takes the lion's share of the profits from labor despite not needing to work - they only need to own. There is no capitalism that doesn't have this antagonism. Workers are exploited because the majority of the value of their work is stolen and given to an entrenched ruling class. This relationship is called many things; I usually go with wage slavery.

Socialism abolishes this antagonism by moving the means of production into the hands of the workers. Thus, there is no exploitation - because the workers democratically control their workplaces, they decide who their bosses are and what they get paid (if they decide to have bosses at all!). Since no owning class is expropriating their labor, they get back the full value of the work they put in, or at least an equitable share with everyone else, since some of the value they generate obviously goes back into the business itself. The important thing is that they have control over their economic situation instead of being manipulated and ruled by powerful interests directly oppose to them.

You say you want more union power? Well unions exist to protect workers from capitalists. Let's just get rid of the capitalists.

I don't understand how these examples apply large-scale to post-industrial Western society. In a service economy, tons of people are not at all "at the mercy of capitalists". My parents, as journalists, work in the private sector. Neither the company or its employees can work independently, because the journalists drive content, and the company itself gives legitimacy and resources to individual journalists. The same is true for banks, the entertainment industry, and every other field that does not involve manual work. Mines should totally be owned by the miners, but why should banks be owned by the tellers?

If your definition of capitalism is so narrow that it only refers to , then I guess I support the end to capitalism. Democratization in the workplace can only do good, especially in industries as traditionally exploitative as mining or agriculture. But by the broader definition, much more befitting of the economic system that replaced land-based manorialism as extent earlier in Europe, ending capitalism and eradicating both social class and social mobility would be unethical. A state cannot deprive somebody of the ability to die beyond the means of their parents.

 

[ImpalingNarwhal]

I'm sure most people don't understand it, which is quite unfortunate. For those interested, I recommend an article by Einstein named "Why Socialism?" Very intriguing read.

 

[Chichikov]

I sort of always thought of it as the middle point on the scale.

Laissez faire capitalism------------------------Socialism--------------------------------Communism.

So the government owns some of the means of production, but not all of it. Covers a pretty broad spectrum. By my definition, the US would be socialist just because of the post office.

It's all semantics really, but by standard definition, socialism is about workers owning the means of production, not the government.
The idea that the government own the mean of production is vanguardism or Leninism, and at least in theory it is supposed to be a short transitional period.

Communism, at least if go by Marx's definition is a utopian post scarcity free association society, but really, it's not something you can really get until you have superabundance.

There are instances of socialism in the US, co-ops and the likes, but as a whole, this is not the dominant model of ownership in its economy.
The post office is not socialism, USPS workers don't own it.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Democratization in the workplace can only do good, especially in industries as traditionally exploitative as mining or agriculture.

I think this would be true without the word "only" in it - it certainly can do good, but not exclusively. The interests of the individuals workers (even a majority of them) is not always the same as the interests of the business, nor of the population at large.

 

[CoryCubed]

I'm more worried about the term liberal. I swear these guys throwing around liberal agendas, liberals going to take this, liberals going to take that, they must be paranoid delusional schizophrenic. My mom had severe schizophrenia, and if you swap the pronouns she used during her psychotic episodes with liberals, and it sounds exactly like these guys on Facebook and the internet.

 

[jackissocool]

I don't understand how these examples apply large-scale to post-industrial Western society. In a service economy, tons of people are not at all "at the mercy of capitalists". My parents, as journalists, work in the private sector. Neither the company or its employees can work independently, because the journalists drive content, and the company itself gives legitimacy and resources to individual journalists. The same is true for banks, the entertainment industry, and every other field that does not involve manual work. Mines should totally be owned by the miners, but why should banks be owned by the tellers?

If your definition of capitalism is so narrow that it only refers to , then I guess I support the end to capitalism. Democratization in the workplace can only do good, especially in industries as traditionally exploitative as mining or agriculture. But by the broader definition, much more befitting of the economic system that replaced land-based manorialism as extent earlier in Europe, ending capitalism and eradicating both social class and social mobility would be unethical. A state cannot deprive somebody of the ability to die beyond the means of their parents.

Your parents generate value with the work they do. That value takes the form of revenue for the business that employs them. The business owners have complete control over that revenue despite not generating it. Hence the inherent class antagonisms of capitalism. It applies just as easily to services as manufacturing.

 

[cutmeamango]

Socialism is finding a rock, calling it yours and discovering other people live in the same planet.

 

[Haeralis The BRave]

A lot of people do throw the word around a lot when it might be an overstatement, HOWEVER the left does the same thing with the word "fascism" and it's often much more inaccurate.

 

[Princess Viola]

socialism is what king obama wants to enact as part of his islamo-fascist rule on the usa, right?

 

[Wallach]

It means taking my money to fund your lifestyle.

Hmm, wait are we talking about capitalism or socialism?

 

[sphagnum]

No, people don't know what it means, and when they think they know they usually think it means either Soviet style bureaucracy or if they really think they know and they think they're smart for knowing they say it really means what social democracy actually means.

Not many people in the US have ever had the opportunity to learn about the ideas of a democratic, worker controlled economy.

 

[codex119]

Communism's Slightly more pretty sister?

 

[Derekloffin]

Well, it has 'ism' in the name, so must be like racism and sexism, right?

 

[Valhelm]

Your parents generate value with the work they do. That value takes the form of revenue for the business that employs them. The business owners have complete control over that revenue despite not generating it. Hence the inherent class antagonisms of capitalism. It applies just as easily to services as manufacturing.

But their work would be impossible without the business. Generally speaking, reporters working alone cannot become prominent and make a livable wage. The support system is necessary to give them press legitimacy and ensure that they are able to interview or cover the figures they want to.

 

[lednerg]

99% of Americans who use 'Socialist' or 'Marxist' as a slur have no clue what they're talking about. Constantly.

 

[Currygan]

if with "people" you mean 95% of Americans, then yes you're probably right, they don't have a clue and always end up mixing up marxism, communism and socialism while basically ignoring even the simplest differences

 

[Wiktor]

Cause capitalism has no bribery.

Sure it does. But it's treated as negative there. In socialism bribery is positive, because it's what requires this system to function at all