The Politics of Socialism

[ErikTheRed]

In socialism, there will still need to be decisions about the allocation of resources.

To an extent, I can appreciate the ‘moral logic’ in socialism. Capitalism claims to solve the problem of resource allocation by first ‘problematising’ it, then creating a market and incentives for others to help me, which conceals the simple fact that, for the most part, the system engaged to help me is treating people more or less as ‘volunteer slaves’, making them do mostly work they would not do if they had a real choice in the matter. Capitalists say that nobody is forced to do particular work, but really they are.

If we’re in socialism and I, as an individual, decide I need a particular tool or other item, but I lack the expertise or resources to make it, I must either do without, or persuade somebody I know to help me, or ask others to help me. The last option may involve a formal decision, or it may not, but if it does, and the decision does not go my way, that means I have to put up with it. Socialism does not have the solution of ‘coerced incentives’ and voluntary slavery, but this I can accept as I have no right to force others to do my bidding or participate in some sort of social machinery that brings that about. I can already see how this situation could limit Socialist Man industrially and aesthetically, but at the same time, I see the logic to it – and to be honest, it is hard to argue with it.

But what if formal decisions in socialism take on a political character? Don’t you think it is quite likely that this will be the case? I think libertarians/anarcho-capitalists have the same issue. Both you and they pretend that ‘politics’ will go, as if a whole field of human nature/behaviour will disappear or be subsumed into a sort of meta-political background noise, just because there is no formal system of property – but it won’t. It’s very obvious it won’t.

I think at some level socialists are vaguely aware of this and your solution seems to be that dissenters of any sort can simply live apart if they wish to, or maybe move to another community, and anyway, they will be left alone.

I suppose the nub of the problem is that having industrial/economic decisions made ‘politically’ may be a tad naive because it ignores aspects of human nature/behaviour that can warp and distort political processes, such as the tendency for some people to be natural leaders, others to be quiet; some will be more verbally intelligent that others and those people may dominate things, and so forth. Perhaps you get the idea. In other words, even when you formally abolish the state, the state continues to exist in a softer form. It’s similar to what is called soft power, and soft power is arguably the only real sort of power. The most powerful man in the world may still be persuaded by his wife to take all manner of decisions – that’s real power. It’s human nature.

I think the ‘non-systematic’ aspects of socialism, such as self-directed production, could work well (though arguably these will evolve in a pseudo-socialist direction). The issue I take is with socialism as a ‘system’, in particular its political life. Your core assumption is deeply utilitarian, or rather, appeals to utilitarianism. You seem to think that all socialist democratic mechanisms will be perfect colleges of mutual interest, that if a decision is made ‘democratically’ then it must be made in the collective interest. I’m not suggesting that you think this will always perfectly work out to be the case, but you are arguing that this is literally axiomatic.

I don’t accept that it is axiomatic, for the reasons given above. I also retain a concern for the rights of individuals and other social units such as families, extended families, traditional cultures and tribes (in Africa, central Asia, South America), groups in Europe, Australasia and North America that wish to retain a traditional ethnic identity. These groups may be in large numbers and their ‘cultural consciousness’ may not be eroded by the decline and fall of capitalism. You assume it will because you are persuaded by neo-Marxist arguments, but who is to say that a shift to socialism will result in radical social sensibilities? People could live traditionally in socialism.

[alanjjohnstone]

“I also retain a concern for the rights of individuals and other social units such as families, extended families, traditional cultures and tribes (in Africa, central Asia, South America), groups in Europe, Australasia and North America that wish to retain a traditional ethnic identity.”

Didn’t the Communist Manifesto address this question and conclude that it was capitalism which was the threat to families and lifestyle, a conclusion confirmed by McDonaldisation and the growth of the nuclear family where previously large extended families (clans) flourished?

Nevertheless, we do appear to be subject to global influences that aren’t always so negative.

Take the Korean tragedy at Halloween, a foreign festivity that they adopted. Just as many around the world have been receptive to Korean music, K-Pop

In the predominantly Buddhist country I live in, Christmas is now celebrated, the religious element ignored but the present-giving embraced.

London has its annual carnival imported from the Caribbean culture.

Is there any evidence that socialism will discourage diversity? Or will it foster even more?

[Author]

Posts