We need a “Socialism” which can compete with Capitalism in free market

December 2020 Forums General discussion We need a “Socialism” which can compete with Capitalism in free market

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #208641
    Observer
    Participant

    Comrades…

    A few can argue with the merits of means of production and distribution to be owned collectively by the society, especially those who are in hardships, though some who are well-off will see no point of trying something else especially when the status quo is working for them…. Now do we convince those few and many others who have subscribed to the bad name socialism has been given…, or do we show them practically that it can work, and not only work but work better than the current systems.

    Long term, a system which depends on goodwill of the few to guarantee the wellness of majority is unsustainable, the majority needs to be in control as well as those whom life has dealt them the wrong cards (the downtrodden) should be ensured that they will live humanly and given opportunity to offer anything that they can offer for the well-being of the community as a whole.

    As the saying goes, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” what is needed is a system whereby people can earn their income thus its of utmost importance that an entity benefiting from peoples manpower and consumption to ensure such people have abilities to perform available jobs and the money they are paid sufficient to be able to obtain their needs…. The only entity which can ensure that happens is the entity which is built for the benefit of all people’s welfare and not for the profit of some, an entity owned by the few will not have any reason to pay more than they can get away with, especially in the age of automation whereby the demand of employment far outweighs supply.

    Currently economic inequality is at all-time high, many have no income earning opportunities let alone those few who have, their working conditions leave a lot to be desired (no rights for workers, extremely low wages, extremely long working hours, and zero safety provisions), and as time goes on the gap between the have and have-not grows larger with the masses getting into extreme poverty.

    Now the question remains how can masses fight for the system which will be for their benefit, how can socialism gain an upper hand even when faced with injustices of capitalism?

    The naysayers will always tell you socialism will never work and has failed again and again, therefore the only way is not to try to convince them or preach to an unsympathetic ear but rather to try and compete with them in equal footing. Beat then at their own game if you may….

    Many will cite efficiency and freedom of choice, as advantages of capitalism, something which am yet to be convinced that is impossible under socialist community, especially if by socialism we mean the fruits of production to be beneficial to the community as a whole and not selected few.

    Comrades…, lets asks ourselves…, is it impossible for socialist entities to be able to perform even in capitalistic environments and still come up trumps? And by socialist entities I do not mean the workers cooperatives and the likes, since even when the workers cooperatives manage to compete with corporations wouldn’t those workers cooperatives turn into the same scenario of them (the owners) exploiting the current workers? And in the current competitive environment of cutting costs and prices being a weapon the workers cooperatives might find it hard to compete.

    In my humble opinion there is a way for a socialistic entity to be able to compete with capitalistic entities in any political system, for the benefit of people’s welfare.

    Inspired by the Book; The Socialistic Capitalist in Free Market; The only way a Socialist can Compete with Capitalists in Free Market (Using neither Subsidies nor Taxes)

    • This topic was modified 1 month ago by Observer.
    #208645
    Matthew Culbert
    Keymaster

    That above is hogwash and probably spam.

    Socialism/communism, it means the same in the classical Marxian, pre-Leninist sense, will be an advanced , post-capitalist society, run by us all, locally, regionally, globally, in administration over resources and not a government over people.

    It will be a market -free, money-free, production for use (not for sale), free access (not rationed access) commonly owned,(not private, corporate or state owned) revolutionary permanent break with the present capitalist one.

    It has never existed anywhere.

    It is not a ‘reformist’ nor a ‘statist’ version of capitalism which retains wage slavery in any form.

    It will be the mature, politically conscious task of the immense majority to make it happen and not the minority vanguardist led actions of pseudo-revolutionaries.

    “The organising tenet will be from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.”

    Only a commonly owned production for use society of true social equals to the means of production and distribution can ever do this.

    If there are wages and salaries, it is not socialism/communism.
    State ownership is not socialism/communism.
    Social programs are not socialism/communism.
    Socialism/communism means democracy at all levels of society, including the workplace.
    Socialism/communism means a wageless, moneyless society.
    Socialism/communism means voluntary labour.
    Socialism/communism means free access to the goods produced by society.

    ____________________________

    ” The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves. We cannot, therefore, co-operate with people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must be freed from above by philanthropic big bourgeois and petty bourgeois.”

    (1879 Marx and Engels )

    #208649
    Observer
    Participant

    Sorry Mr. Matthew if my  post seem to be Spam, for the case of being Hogwash that might be true, but it was just my two cents of the practicability of having a form of Socialism which can survive in capitalistic environment…, and the definition of Socialism which I took (maybe a bit too loosely) is the one which means of production as well as the fruits of that production to be owned/benefit the community as a whole…

    They say a Rose by any other name, smells just as sweet…, the point am trying to make we need a system by any name which is better and look after majority not minorities, and that system needs to compete with capitalism not hoping capitalism dies for it to exist.

    In my humble opinion such a system can exist, because if it will benefit majority, then the masses themselves will/can make it work. We need a system which is productive and efficient.

    As for money / wages you might call it credits to get something… money makes efficient the exchange of needs and wants…, the system am advocating is the one which:-

    People don’t Work to Earn, rather they Work to Produce; and They Earn to Consume

    A system which guarantees people have skills to produce and ability to earn so they can consume, for the betterment of themselves and community.

     

     

     

    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Observer.
    #208652
    Matthew Culbert
    Keymaster

    Sorry Mr. Matthew if my  post seem to be Spam,

    Well if not, then apologies. it looked like it was advertising a daft book.

    for the case of being Hogwash that might be true, but it was just my two cents of the practicability of having a form of Socialism which can survive in capitalistic environment…,

    Impossible.

    and the definition of Socialism which I took (maybe a bit too loosely) is the one which means of production as well as the fruits of that production to be owned/benefit the community as a whole…

    To be owned in common and controled democraticaly in a production for use, free access, society is the complete anti-thesis to production for a market.

    They say a Rose by any other name, smells just as sweet…,

    Capitalism comes with poverty relative or absolute and war by deed or proxy regardless of how it is dressed up , the same foul stench wil emanate from your anarcho-capitalist wet dream.

    the point am trying to make we need a system by any name which is better and look after majority not minorities,

    No we need a system in which social equality to the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth prevails.

    and that system needs to compete with capitalism not hoping capitalism dies for it to exist.

    We are not wishing to compete with capitalism, this can only happen by driving down wage costs and increasing the rate of exploitation.
    We are not hoping capitalism dies, we are advocating its extinction and the capture of its technological and informational infrastructures by the immense majority to apply a free access, production for use society.

    In my humble opinion such a system can exist, because if it will benefit majority, then the masses themselves will/can make it work. We need a system which is productive and efficient.

    Your productive and efficient system arises from exploiting and self-exploiting the wealth producing working class, the source of all wealth is labour.

    As for money / wages you might call it credits to get something… money makes efficient the exchange of needs and wants…, the system am advocating is the one which:-

    People don’t Work to Earn, rather they Work to Produce; and They Earn to Consume

    This is totally unnecessary to have a means of exchange when all is owned in common.

    A system which guarantees people have skills to produce and ability to earn so they can consume, for the betterment of themselves and community.

    It is a happy clappy utopia which ignores the costs of war, arising out of competition between rival capitalists in nation states, trading blocs, over markets, trade routes, raw materials and spheres of geopolitical advantage and poverty, which arises out of reproducing exploitation at the point of production to create surplus value.

    #208710
    Observer
    Participant

    Let’s get back to basics, and so we are on the same page

    You are saying its impossible for a socialist entity to exist in capitalistic Environment

    We might argue the semantics, but what am advocating is for and entity with Socialistic features: –

    • Collective Ownership:
    • Economic, Social and Political Equality
    • No Competition (within itself) but strong enough to Compete with other Entities

    If the end product is the welfare of the people, we need something which can work and compete in any environment so as to provide such welfare to people (and not provide but give opportunity to each and everyone to ensure they have ability to achieve their welfare. That is a system which is needed

    To be owned in common and controled democraticaly in a production for use, free access, society is the complete anti-thesis to production for a market.

    What is a market ? Does ensuring needs and wants are provided not a market ?, If an entity working from community level, has ability to produce x amount of product y to be used in different communities should they not produce it and ensure every other community gain such product ?

    Free access, yes there is free access and before that access can be available we need the product to be available, and such product will be available if needs and wants are known beforehand thus can be produced accordingly (not produce to waste, put produce to be used)

    Capitalism comes with poverty relative or absolute and war by deed or proxy regardless of how it is dressed up , the same foul stench wil emanate from your anarcho-capitalist wet dream.

    Might be a dream, but a dream nevertheless towards brainstorming the betterment of the future, Instead of saying Capitalism brings this or that, the more efficient way is to have an alternative which can go toe to toe with Capitalism and come up trumps, not wishing it to go away, and as to wars and what not, those can only be minimized by people being well-off and not having people in extreme poverty with nothing to lose who can easily be brainwashed. To remove Us and Them, can only be removed by the majority having the means of being well-off without waiting for any goodwill from anyone. Therefore in order to come up with a solution whose life wont be consigned in the realms of theory and books, a practical solution is needed which can work on ground/in the field

    No, we need a system in which social equality to the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth prevails.

    Indeed, we need such system, but how to we get such system, by talking and arguing until we get tired just to wait and still arguing again or by going toe to toe with what is current available? (and what is better way of going toe to toe non violently than making sure the people themselves are able to produce for themselves for their own benefit) and those who still are unconvinced might automatically join the system by seeing that it works.

    We are not wishing to compete with capitalism, this can only happen by driving down wage costs and increasing the rate of exploitation.

    It’s people whom are producers and its people whom are consumers, and as I said before people should not work so as to earn, rather than they should work to produce what is needed and the wages should ensure they have buying power to afford their needs, wants, healthcare, retirement and what not, People should not work as a hobby but as necessary way to achieve their needs and wants, and with automation people should work as minimum as possible. Now instead of arguing that products from capitalists are exploiting people (which is true) the people (they are majority anyway) they should produce their own products.


    We are not hoping capitalism dies, we are advocating its extinction and the capture of its technological and informational infrastructures by the immense majority to apply a free access, production for use society.

    We whom will make capitalism extinct so we might take their infrastructure, might end up the minority controlling and doing the same thing which the ones we have made extinct were doing in the first place.

    The better way since we know what can be done to achieve the betterment for all is to do what is needed and not wishful thinking of getting rid of something which is very hard to do, let alone convince people that is the right thing to do.

    Your productive and efficient system arises from exploiting and self-exploiting the wealth producing working class, the source of all wealth is labour.

    When what’s needed is known, and how to do it and by how much labor force such work can be available for whomever needs to do it so as to sustain their life within a community.

    So long as such work which is done pays enough for such people to sustain their life that’s all that is needed. And to avoid exploitation such entity needs to be owned by the majority.

    This is totally unnecessary to have a means of exchange when all is owned in common.

    Even before currency there was batter trade, its easier for currency to be used in exchange rather than a butcher exchanging his meat for a hair cut from a barber. But if a barber, butcher, cleaner they have all got buying power to have their meat, their hair cut and their environment cleaned everyone within a community will live a life worth living.

    All can be owned in common but if there is only a few meat, and few fish with plenty of beans to ensure everyone gets their desire its easier better if everyone have credit and they can decide what to have and when unless otherwise everyone will be fighting for meat.

    It is a happy clappy utopia which ignores the costs of war, arising out of competition between rival capitalists in nation states, trading blocs, over markets, trade routes, raw materials and spheres of geopolitical advantage and poverty, which arises out of reproducing exploitation at the point of production to create surplus value.

    To say wars started during capitalism that is stretching it too far…, even the times of small community villages the few with resources (farms etc) they were getting invaded and some were taken as slaves to be used for labor, the key word here is scarcity, and some having nothing while others have something.

    And remember the competition am talking about is for this Socialistic entity being able to compete with capitalist entities am not saying we need competition between the entities am advocating, after all unity is strength and the only way the poorest can overcome their poverty is through their strength in numbers and they need an entity which can mobilize them.

    #208711
    alanjjohnstone
    Participant

    There has always been those who advance what they consider to be solutions to the many problems we face today by the manner capitalism is operated. What they share in common is a reluctance to dispense with the root cause of those problems – the exchange economy – commonly known as market capitalism but incorporating variants such as state ownership and cooperatives, different management systems to carry out the running of the buy and sell economy, the wages-system.

    The common ownership of the means of production and a money-free economic system for the purpose of satisfying social needs has been the answer promoted ever since the times of the Diggers (and before).

    We propose a socialist commonwealth which couldn’t be explained any simpler than in this article.

    https://www.worldsocialism.org/wsm/2020/10/28/money-must-go/

     

    #208714
    Matthew Culbert
    Keymaster

    What workers sell, and what capitalists normally pay the full value of, is their labour-power, which is capable of producing a greater value than its own. If capitalists paid “the full value of labour” they wouldn’t make any profits.

    Above from a book review: https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1994/1990s/no-1077-may-1994/book-review-against-market-political-economy-market-s/

    That applies regardless of whether the enterprise is owned by a collective, a cooperative, a corporation, a state or privately.

    It would apply to your happy clappy ‘socialistic’ experiment as regular ‘unsocialistic’ capitalism out-competed it, minced it up, wolfed it down and spat it out, pointing at another ‘failure of socialism’.

    ______________________

    “If money, according to Augier, [14] “comes into the world with a congenital blood-stain on one cheek,” capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt. [15] The Genesis of Industrial Capitalism.”

    ______________________

     

     

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.