Socialism, liberalism, conservatism.. is whatever you're told it is

[Tricky]

I find myself in the novel position of siding with Plekhanov...

 

While on the face of it, the OP is a laudable piece about pigeon-holing and stereotyping instead of appraising ideas on their merits, it is really a piece about how Socialism shouldn't be attacked on the basis of failed experiments with it, the world over.

 

To define Socialism so narrowly that the Soviet Union doesn't fall within the definition, and to define Capitalism so broadly that that the Soviet Union falls into that one, is quite breathtaking given the nature of the original complaint.

 

Let's look at Wikipedia's definitions of Capitalism and Socialism to see where the Soviet Union fits best....

Capitalism typically refers to an economic and social system in which the means of production (also known as capital) are privately controlled; labor, goods and capital are traded in a market; profits are distributed to owners or invested in new technologies and industries; and wages are paid to labor.

 

Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating state, worker or public ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation.

 

So apart from the method of compensation/wage distribution which is a fairly woolly concept anyway, the old Soviet Union was clearly Socialist and clearly not Capitalist.

[LibertyBell]

"Socialism" now becomes an undesirable, outdated, tried and failed model, because of its gross misdefinition. It now lies outside the accepted "moderate" political arena.

 

I don't think it's been tried yet has it?

[epiphany]

Tricky, I appreciate the Wikipedia definitions, but even they require the use of the words "typically refers to", or similar.

 

I could just as easily throw this up...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

 

There is plenty of intellectual weight behind Marxist theory that suggests so-called "socialist" states such as China and Cuba would fall into the same category as the USSR, as far as being state-capitalist systems.

 

The problem is, and I don't for one second claim I am the foremost authority on the whole capitalism vs socialism debate, that even in an apparently socialist system, capital can still be concentrated into the hands of a ruling class, on the very basis of a class society. Whilst the appearence of economic order is changed, the structures of a capitalist ruling class remain in place (out with the old in with the old/meet the new boss...), from which all the fundamental elements that make capitalism a system in its own right stem - wage labour being a key antithesis to what I'd consider "true" economic socialism.

 

We're talking about the very fundamentals of the system here. The more you expose the machinery, the more clearly you are able to see how it relies on the very same mechanism as "liberal" capitalism.

 

The below is an excellent introduction to the concept of state-capitalism. Bear in mind that whether the USSR was socialist or not is not the true issue here - it still isn't the only definition of socialism, yet it is viewed by many as such.

 

http://www.marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1941/ussr-capitalist.htm

 

It's also worth pointing out that Marx himself considered state-capitalism as one of the major forms of "pseudo-socialism" or, paradoxically "conservative socialism" that would use the very deceptions and misdefinitions discussed in the topic of this thread.

[Tricky]

Tricky, I appreciate the Wikipedia definitions, but even they require the use of the words "typically refers to", or similar.

 

I could just as easily throw this up...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

 

....

 

The entry that begins "for Marxists and heterodox economists"?

 

I also don't claim to have exhaustive knowledge of the area. But my understanding is that Marx wrote that taking state control of the means of production was a necessary step on the way to his Socialist Utopia. One of his many naive and impractical ideas was that the state would 'wither away' leaving production in the hands of the workers. Like that was going to happen.

 

Anyway, once you take the means of production away from the private sector and the State controls the markets, you no longer have Capitalism. You can call what you do end up with, anything you like but given the 'orthodox' definitions, calling it something with Socialism in the title makes a lot more sense than calling it something with Capitalism in the title.

 

I don't buy your argument that wage labour defines whether an economic system is Socialist or Capitalist because then there are simply no Socialist economies and it's very difficult to work out how there could possibly be any.

 

Going back to the point of the thread, the definition of Socialism given by Wikipedia was very broad and clearly included a lot else besides old Soviet style economics, whereas your definition is incredibly narrow and includes no-one at all, ever. It's hardly surprising you don't like people citing the Soviets in arguments against you because you don't want them citing anything real at all.

[slimsid2000]

I'm a Meowist -

[epiphany]

The entry that begins "for Marxists and heterodox economists"?

 

Capitalists will have their own view and Marxists their's - this is how debate is formed. I would actually change that opening sentence as well (it is Wikipedia, after all, and articles get expanded without intros being updated), since the article goes on to cover non-Marxist theory surrounding state capitalism. I don't see it being any less worthy of my time to study what non-capitalist schools theorised on the application of various economic and social systems throughout history.

 

I also don't claim to have exhaustive knowledge of the area. But my understanding is that Marx wrote that taking state control of the means of production was a necessary step on the way to his Socialist Utopia. One of his many naive and impractical ideas was that the state would 'wither away' leaving production in the hands of the workers. Like that was going to happen.

 

You are correct and I tend to agree, since I'm not a Marxist.

 

Anyway, once you take the means of production away from the private sector and the State controls the markets, you no longer have Capitalism. You can call what you do end up with, anything you like but given the 'orthodox' definitions, calling it something with Socialism in the title makes a lot more sense than calling it something with Capitalism in the title.

 

I respect your views on at what point capitalism ceases to be capitalism, but I disagree. As you know, this isn't a 1-1 debate as you appear to share the perspective of predominantly liberal theorists, which is just another theoretical school, whether its ideas have become the ruling ideology of our times or not.

 

There is enough discourse out there to keep this debate fuelled for another century.

 

I don't buy your argument that wage labour defines whether an economic system is Socialist or Capitalist because then there are simply no Socialist economies and it's very difficult to work out how there could possibly be any.

 

I'm not selling anything. Again, there is plenty of discourse out there discussing alternative theories of the value of labour and wage labour. If you look at how worker co-operatives are run, for example, there is one model. Profit sharing schemes have been adopted by many workplaces in this country, giving workers an intrinsic link to the fruits of their labour.

 

Outside of capitalist schools of thought, wage labour is generally considered a key tenet of a capitalist class system.

 

Going back to the point of the thread, the definition of Socialism given by Wikipedia was very broad and clearly included a lot else besides old Soviet style economics, whereas your definition is incredibly narrow and includes no-one at all, ever. It's hardly surprising you don't like people citing the Soviets in arguments against you because you don't want them citing anything real at all.

 

What an absurd thing to say.

 

Let's just go back to my initial argument which was that the definitions of ideologies like socialism have become conflated, so much so that they now include systemic traits that, I and many understand, conflict with the core values of socialist economic theory, and actually have more in common with capitalist economic theory, although as I mentioned, there is plenty of room for debate on how ideological perspective changes this distinction.

 

There is a difference between a definition being conflationary and one that is narrow yet true to its roots. Socialism has broadened, I don't deny this. What I deny is that state-socialism/state-capitalism defines socialism. Many people believe it does. Just from my experiences.

[Tricky]

...

I'm not selling anything. Again, there is plenty of discourse out there discussing alternative theories of the value of labour and wage labour. If you look at how worker co-operatives are run, for example, there is one model. Profit sharing schemes have been adopted by many workplaces in this country, giving workers an intrinsic link to the fruits of their labour.

 

Outside of capitalist schools of thought, wage labour is generally considered a key tenet of a capitalist class system.

 

 

 

What an absurd thing to say.

 

Let's just go back to my initial argument which was that the definitions of ideologies like socialism have become conflated, so much so that they now include systemic traits that, I and many understand, conflict with the core values of socialist economic theory, and actually have more in common with capitalist economic theory, although as I mentioned, there is plenty of room for debate on how ideological perspective changes this distinction.

 

There is a difference between a definition being conflationary and one that is narrow yet true to its roots. Socialism has broadened, I don't deny this. What I deny is that state-socialism/state-capitalism defines socialism. Many people believe it does. Just from my experiences.

 

There are instances of a few businesses running profit sharing schemes. There are no instances of states or nations being run according to anything other than wage labour except perhaps some forms of slavery. That is why it is pointless to say wage labour is a tenet of Capitalist systems, it is a tenet of every system.

 

I don't think it was absurd, harsh maybe but not absurd. If you only want to talk about Socialism as an abstract concept then fine if that's what you want to talk about. But as soon as you start talking about Socialism as a viable alternative to Capitalism, as something tangible, then it is quite right and fair that Soviet style failures are introduced as examples of how the implementation of Socialism failed and probably will always fail. 'State-socialism/state-capitalism' doesn't define Socialism, it's just the only examples of an attempt to implement it.

[epiphany]

There are instances of a few businesses running profit sharing schemes. There are no instances of states or nations being run according to anything other than wage labour except perhaps some forms of slavery. That is why it is pointless to say wage labour is a tenet of Capitalist systems, it is a tenet of every system.

 

I don't think it was absurd, harsh maybe but not absurd. If you only want to talk about Socialism as an abstract concept then fine if that's what you want to talk about. But as soon as you start talking about Socialism as a viable alternative to Capitalism, as something tangible, then it is quite right and fair that Soviet style failures are introduced as examples of how the implementation of Socialism failed and probably will always fail. 'State-socialism/state-capitalism' doesn't define Socialism, it's just the only examples of an attempt to implement it.

 

I am well aware that capitalism is the predominant ideology in the developed and developing world. That is neither here nor there as we are discussing the theoretical base of these ideologies. Even capitalism began with classical liberal theory and the doctrines born from it. It is still an institution of thought, and even capitalism has suffered perversion from those who exploit its systemic flaws (which, again, could be debated ad nauseum).

 

Wage labour is regarded by many theorists of labour and economics as a key tenet of a capitalist class system... whether it's the predominant system or not, and no matter how developed that system is, although capitalism is still relatively young and immature.

 

It is wholly short sighted to presume that state-capitalist perversions of socialist theory (or certain manifestations of Marxist reactionism) define socialism simply because:

 

a) they were self-proclaimed socialist states and,

 

b) they were the predominant alternative to capitalism in the 20th century, therefore reaffirming a) in peoples' minds.

 

Your argument makes no sense on these grounds. If you do the reading you will see that socialism is far larger and more intricate than its overt historic presence, so to simplify it by saying that just because one crude form of it existed, socialism as an entire theory has had its run, is irrationally dismissive.

 

There are many tangible alternatives to the current capitalist model, many of which are outlined by organisations supporting co-operative economics, banking reform (now there's an entire thread in itself) and organisations such as the Institute for Economic Democracy. In fact, governments and people/consumers/workers alike are pressuring markets to adopt many of these elements, simply through the growing disillusionment with outdated and unsustainable capitalist traditions.

 

If you are serious about learning the alternatives, rather than constantly convincing yourself "there is no alternative" based on very limited presumption, then why not take an interest in the vast material out there, spanning nearly two centuries? Without such interest, you can't claim to know whether there is a tangible alternative or not, and you're left presuming, like so many stuck in the mindset of the status quo.

[Wildcat]

Like with many concepts Socialism, Capitalism, Liberalism are not clearly defined. At various times people have proclaimed themselves to be one or other of these when their views have not been so different from people with the same views who label themselves differently.

 

My simplistic take on it is that the theory of Capitalism is a bit like an evolutionary theory it deals with the simple rules of supply and demand that generate the complexity of business practices. The Capitalist system generates wealth out of simple set of rules and relationships. The problem is that left to its own devices the created wealth is not distributed fairly which creates tensions within the system between the working class and the owning class. In a clear example of the inherent problems with an unregulated Capitalist system you have the example of the view taken during the potatoe famine that the state should not intervene in the economics that justified the export of grain from Ireland at a time when the potatoe crop failed a million people died of starvation.

 

Whilst Adam Smith didn't dwell on it he did make the point that Capitalism had to be regulated by morality. And that point is generally accepted in most Capitalist thinkers. However that criticism of Capitalism is also the same criticism of self proclaimed Socialists that have looked at ways in which the free market can be regulated. Socialist critique of the Capitalist system didn't replace the system they sought to regulate it and allow for a more equal distribution of the wealth.

 

Liberalism I think confuses matters, economic liberalism is basically advocating a less regulated Capitalist system, where moral Liberalism is about human rights and the advancement of workers rights and of fairness which is essentially a Socialist programme.

 

I see Capitalism and Socialism as being different ends of the same debate about the extent to which we allow the market to behave freely and the extent to which we democratically intervene to regulate it to distribute the Wealth generated ethically, fairly and to limit the extent to which profit can be made out of suffering. Socialists tend to prefer more intervention Capitalists less intervention. Even when we talk about Socialists within the anarchist traditions who advocate the abolition of the state, they do so on the basis of businesses run democratically by the workers for the workers, the market such as it is is therefore regulated even if informally to exclude ownership and property rights.

 

To criticise Socialism in relation to Russia or China is fine, it is a criticism of those forms of Government. It does not however undermine Socialist thinking any more than pointing to the potato famine undermines thinkers who identify themselves as Capitalist thinkers.

 

The reality is that Socialism is as much a part of our politics and our economics as Capitalism is. The interesting debate is not the throwing of insults, name calling or the labelling of people but the debate about the extent to which it is wise and required for our democratic representatives to involve themselves in the amoral system of wealth creation based on the principles of supply and demand and the forms in which that intervention occurs.

[plekhanov]

I may have misunderstood your position, but are you claiming that Bush was a conservative? The brains behind his administration would prove otherwise. The size of his government would prove otherwise!

By what definition are you claiming that Bush isn't a conservative and that your definition is absolutely the only one? Because the fact is that until the depth of the failure of his project in Iraq and most of all the financial collapse became evident there was widespread agreement amongst US conservatives that he was a conservative. Just as until the depths of evil and failure of the USSR became evident many western socialists were happy to call it socialist.

 

There is no embarrassment because the USSR was a blatant perversion of the socialist idea

"the socialist idea" Are you seriously claiming there's only one? Socialism is a highly variegated movement with lots of divergent ideas, some of which gave rise to the Soviet Union.

 

Whilst masquerading as socialism, it had typical elements of capitalism - wage labour, commodity production, a class society, a non-public central bank and a capitalist class that commanded the economy through a management class.

And the definition of 'socialist' absolutely excludes a medium of exchange, commodity production, any form of stratification, managers... does it? By taking on all these post hoc qualifications onto the definition of 'socialist' you are once again committing a classic no true Scotsman fallacy.

 

Socialism at it's most basic is concerns collective ownership, redistribution of wealth, collective provision of goods and services... the USSR was set up to try and achieve those aims. Just because you don't agree with how they set out to achieve them or how that attempt turned out it doesn't magically stop the USSR from being socialist.

 

In terms of centralised ownership/control of capital, there is not much difference

Stop moving the goal posts you said:

 

"If you observe the hierarchical structure of the Soviet system, the only difference between that and a neoliberal capitalist society is that the capital was held exclusively by an elite faction, a ruling class - this could just as well be capitalism at its most centralised."

 

Why don't you actually back that claim up instead of making a new very different one. How about you meet my challenge and name a 'neo-liberal' country so we can compare the two and see if there is more than this single difference.

 

as far as many non-statist socialists, anarchists and libertarians are concerned.

Yes and? Of course people ideologically obsessed with the evils of states see things that way.

 

Not complain, no, but certainly pull them up on it, because it's not an exclusively neoconservative tactic.

Of course invading countries wasn't invented by Neocons I never said it was, that doesn't mean that the recent invasion of Iraq wasn't a Neocon project.

 

Besides, even if the media are rightly identifying "socialist experiments gone wrong", that doesn't mean those particular reactionaries of Marxist thought have a monopoly over the breadth of socialist thought. By being deliberately non-specific about the detail of such systems (due to concision), the media and other soundbite reliant information sources end up manufacturing these new and robust ideological boundaries.

Are you seriously claiming all the media do this on a consistent basis? If so I'd like to see your evidence for this universal claim.

 

Really? Ok, but you can only go on your own experiences and I mine.

I take it you completely missed for example British media's reaction to attacks upon the NHS from the US then?

 

I'm not attempting to pretend anything. I have come to the conclusion, and not for lack of good reason, that many people believe the extent of socialist thought is, ultimately, for the state to own and control all capital and property. That's the encapsulation people see in their minds. Time and time again I have come across these stereotypes, so don't tell me I'm somehow the one pretending black is white here.

So what? Just because lots of people have a distorted view of the totality of socialist thought that doesn't justify your attempts to try and promoted an equally distorted reverse image of this view.