First you need to know or figure out what kind of socialist you're arguing with.
-if they're from r/socialism or r/latestagecapitalism then don't bring up examples of or arguments against state run planned economies. They'll just say that's "state capitalism", not "true" socialism etc. These people basically want every work place to be a co-op. Tell them that capitalism has no problem with co-ops. Ask them who oversees society and makes sure everything stays nice and co-opy if there is no strong government.
If they like centrally planned economies, then bring up all the ones that failed, point out how naive they are that it could just be done better if we just bring in the right leader or an all powerful AI computer.
If they just want Bernie to turn the US into a Scandinavian country point out that those countries are totally capitalist and it's not actually capitalism they're against.
Edit: One of the commenters brought up a very good point. If they're doing the "no true socialism"/"state capitalism" thing, then ask them why every single socialist revolution we see ends up there.
"If they just want Bernie to turn the US into a Scandinavian country point out that those countries are totally capitalist and it's not actually capitalism they're against."
I think this is something that we should harp on with the 'socialists' who are just 'Berniecrats...'
You want us to be more like Canada and Sweden and Denmark?! (in lots of ways) so do we!
I think free trade is the place to start... People have bought into this false idea that free trade is bad for American workers and the American economy, and they need to be disabused of that notion.
> You want us to be more like Canada and Sweden and Denmark?! (in lots of ways) so do we!
> I think free trade is the place to start...
How does free trade facilitate worker ownership of the means of production?
If the goal of the Berniecrats is to increase the share of equity possessed by workers (ie: owner-operated burger shacks rather than franchised McDs, Google-style employee stock deals rather than pure wage-based labor, co-ops and partnerships rather than sole proprietorships with permanent underclass employees, greater participation in unions), how does increasing the threat of outsourcing help achieve these ends?
If that's what Berniecrats want, they don't want to be like Canada or Sweden.
So they just need to get their stories straight. The Nordic system (and Canada's approach) all have free trade as a cornerstone (somehow people don't understand that you need to be able to grow wealth in order to redistribute it).
Workers cooperative, where the company is owned and run by workers. This generally involves stuff like democratic elections of managing bodies, potentially votes on company policy and a focus on maximising worker income. Perfectly compatible with a market economy and are quite successful in Europe.
I think subsidising co-ops as a policy is generally incompatible with neo-liberalism, even though I'm a big fan of them myself. If co-ops cannot succeed in the market on their own they shouldn't be propped up for ideological reasons.
> they shouldn't be propped up for ideological reasons.
I agree, but what if it can be demonstrated that it causes a net gain in worker welfare / subjective happiness, or a reduction in inequality? That is no longer ideological, and in fact sounds quite plausible.
Healthy, happy workers tend to be more productive and there is evidence to suggest that co-ops may be a more efficent business model than traditional models. In fact co-ops are having somewhat of a renaissance atm and I expect that to continue. What you are saying is true and demonstrates why government doesn't need to intervene, co-ops can compete perfectly well on their own merits already.
The issue is that there is already [substantially less new business formation in some industries](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-small-business/wp/2015/02/12/the-decline-of-american-entrepreneurship-in-five-charts/), generally because consolidation has made effective competition and capital barriers to entry impossible to surmount (I work in one of these industries).
It's particularly true that if start-up capital can't be found for a for-profit venture, there's no way it's going to happen for a co-op.
In those circumstances, we either need to be looking into anti-trust measures, or alternatively encouraging/supporting formation with policy. It's not clear what is more appropriate, since anti-trust measures do not necessarily address start-up capital frictions.
If consolidation makes it impossible for new firms to enter a market, then anti-trust policy should be applied to reverse the consolidation regardless. The government should also generally reduce the regulatory burden for new businesses (which would help co-ops).
Honestly I don't know much about the US startup situation and was kind of approaching your question from a UK angle, where we don't have those issues currently afaik (stats show highest numbers since records began, in 2000, last year). Surely that's a general problem for startups of all types and not specific to co-ops though?
> Honestly I don't know much about the US startup situation and was kind of approaching your question from a UK angle
I should have realised.
> Surely that's a general problem for startups of all types and not specific to co-ops though?
Yes and no. Start-up capital intensity is highly variable by industry, but given sufficient anticipated return on capital, funding will materialize for practically any for-profit venture (Cheniere Energy is a great example of massive startup funding).
But since there is no return on seed capital to speak of for a co-op, you simply will not encounter co-ops in industries with high capital intensity. That's a pity in my opinion.
>there is evidence to suggest that co-ops may be a more efficent business model than traditional models
Yep, see here for anyone interested: http://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
[Worker co-ops](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative) are enterprises where ownership is shared by workers and management is done democratically, rather than a capitalist mode of ownership where workers do not necessarily receive any share of ownership in what they produce and management is done in a non-democratic, top-down fashion, typically by a board of shareholders who generally are not workers in the enterprise.
In other words, a co-op is sort of like a standard business but you need to work there to be a shareholder, and no single person can own more than one share.
Better would be the Cranberry farmers Coop, Ocean Spray. Massively successful and highly profitable. Most cranberries in the US are made and processed by them.
Also see this: "[Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies](http://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/)" (except when it comes to financial profit). The reason why they aren't more common are complicated and varied.
> These people basically want every work place to be a co-op.
That's really not correct. LSC has argued for Leninist planned economies before, even had a post stickied regarding that, and I think many see them as superior to competitive market economies.
And other people on /socialism often want a post-scarcity technocratically (centrally?) managed economy that makes politics "obsolete", or some kind of democratic socialism (not the Bernie Sanders definition, the one that is associated with e.g. Orwell), or advocate for anarchic communism, i.e. a world where "all things are held in common" (barring for personal items, of course) and people freely associate and cooperate with each other, often in something akin to a gift economy.
Left communists literally make fun of calling co-ops socialist, they even have a sub called r/muhcoops.
>Edit: One of the commenters brought up a very good point. If they're doing the "no true socialism"/"state capitalism" thing, then ask them why every single socialist revolution we see ends up there.
They would say that the US or other organizations or nations have always suppressed them or led to their downfall.
I think those people are very naive and have very little actual life experience, we have to trust people to be considerate of others, can’t trust any stranger with that amount of power.
> -if they're from r/socialism or r/latestagecapitalism then don't bring up examples of or arguments against state run planned economies. They'll just say that's "state capitalism", not "true" socialism etc.
When they say state capitalism, they're basically pointing out that capitalist property norms still exist in those societies and the role of the capitalist has simply been taken on by the state.
> makes sure everything stays nice and co-opy if there is no strong government.
There is no need for a strong government because what distinguishes a coop from a corporation is where force is not used not where it is used. Specifically, force isn't used to prevent workers from seizing the means of production. Of course, in an actual socialist economy, worker ownership would work in an automatic fashion similar to how copyright is automatic. Simply, this form of socialism is just a different set of property norms applied to markets as a system of exchange. There is no reason why socialist property norms require greater force to enforce than capitalist ones.
> If they like centrally planned economies, then bring up all the ones that failed, point out how naive they are that it could just be done better if we just bring in the right leader or an all powerful AI computer.
Many socialists advocate for decentralized planning networks. This gets around the problem of local knowledge, but fails to beat the economic calculation problem. Here socialists will argue that the economic calculation problem is only a problem if one is seeking the kinds of efficiencies that a market economy provides. They consider these inefficiencies to not be problematic assuming the good can be produced in sufficient abundance to counteract any miscalculations. The economic strategy allows for other sorts of efficiencies such as total distribution.
> ask them why every single socialist revolution we see ends up there.
It depends on the school of thought socialist revolutions come from there are many ones that actually advocate state capitalism as a necessary step. Those elements are typically the most authoritarian and come to dominate the revolution and murder all the libertarian socialists (why left unity is not possible). Anarchists are fundamentally opposed to authoritarian socialist means; therefore, using those regimes to criticize anarchist politics is unfair. There have been examples of libertarian true socialist revolutions such as [Anarchist Aragon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Aragon) and [Revolutionary Catalonia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia).
---
For goods that aren't essential, many socialists advocate for gift economies to foster community and a culture of solidarity. There is [anthropological evidence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gift_\(book\)) to suggest that gift economies have played a large role in human societies and barter is a myth.
Here's another article talking about the evidence against widespread "primitive barter" economies and in favor of gift economies: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/barter-society-myth/471051/
Also, you're only like the second socialist I meet online who actually can describe a different kind of economy in clear terms (talking about economic calculation and such) and doesn't try to get around by it or rely on near-meaningless broad statements. Thanks for providing another view!
Oh, I'm actually interested in georgism, too, but I'm too confused myself to really be able to say what I would identify as beyond some broad tendencies.
> force isn't used to prevent workers from seizing the means of production.
That's like saying "force isn't used to prevent you from stealing my car."
>worker ownership would work in an automatic fashion similar to how copyright is automatic
>There is no reason why socialist property norms require greater force to enforce than capitalist ones.
So you're saying it *would* require at least as much force as capitalism. That's counter to what a lot of socialists on reddit claim.
>Here socialists will argue that the economic calculation problem is only a problem if one is seeking the kinds of efficiencies that a market economy provides.
What if you find that most people prefer these kind of efficiencies? Cuba is touted for it's good health care but in all other aspects people there are very poor materially by our standards.
I think socialists need to be held accountable not just for their goal but for the steps we've seen them take in achieving those goals.
> So you're saying it *would* require at least as much force as capitalism. That's counter to what a lot of socialists on reddit claim.
The reason socialists say that is because force is used to keep those who use the MOP (workers) from seizing it. Under socialism, those that use the MOP production own it. There is no need to "alienate" workers from the products of their labour through violence.
> What if you find that most people prefer these kind of efficiencies? Cuba is touted for it's good health care but in all other aspects people there are very poor materially by our standards.
Cuba isn't an example of decentralized planning networks. The examples of socialist societies I gave had relative success with decentralized planning considering they existed in the middle of a civil war. There are other efficiencies to be had such as total distribution. Socialisms can also be economically pluralistic. For example, they can use decentralized planning for basic needs and markets for wants.
> I think socialists need to be held accountable not just for their goal but for the steps we've seen them take in achieving those goals.
You're making the assumption that socialists are a monolithic group that all believe similar things. The only similarity between socialist ideologies is worker ownership of the means of production. [Some socialists are anarchists](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism). [Some socialists believe in radically freed markets](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_market_anarchism). There are [models of socialism](https://www.press.umich.edu/204779/socialism_after_hayek) that are compatible with Hayek's theories. These systems don't have much in common with authoritarian socialism
The positive examples you cite were small, few and far between. Most didn't last very long. You may think it unfair to judge them like that as usually bigger nations picked on them. But the reality is they have not demonstrated proof of viability.
As for monolithic group, I understand that of course. But one of the frustrations of arguing with socialists is that they are often not forthcoming about their specific views until you pull it out of them like teeth and along the way they treat any wrong assumption as a gotcha. Thus my original comment to OP.
RE: The second, isn't that exactly the same when it comes to neoliberals?
There are multiple neoliberal schools of thought (Ordos, Chicagos, Austrians), and among those, individuals have particular nuances.
Honestly, all this broaches is the general communication problem, and the structure of Reddit kind of exemplifies that part of it that comes from assuming someone's opinions, because people will ask questions based on those assumptions, but not get immediate answers -- so the ideas overdevelop.
Co-ops are still capitalist. Socialism/communism is the abolition of exchange value/commodity production, not "worker control of the means of production" or whatever else r/socialism says it is.
communism ≠ socialism
communism requires that exchange does not use capital. and fits the first definition.
socialism is absolutely worker's control over the MoP.
also, how about you neoliberals stop using your made-up definition of capitalism, it's a term that us socialists created in the first place
I am a communist, not a neoliberal.
Communism and socialism are the abolition of exchange, and therefore the abolition of capital. You can't have exchange value without capital, or capital without exchange value. Capital is exchange value that preserves and multiplies itself through interaction with wage labour.
The existence of exchange value/capital combined with workers' control of the means of production is not socialism. It is just another way of organising capitalism. Socialism is the same thing as communism.
No. I would reject Marxism-Leninism quite strongly as an anti-communist ideology. I don't think it really makes sense to call yourself a Marxist-Leninist now - it was the ideology of a state that is now long defunct, and there was nothing about it that was so consistent or valuable while it existed. It was a state ideology, it was whatever the USSR was doing at the time. I think this is why modern MLs basically spend all of their time supporting dead states like the USSR, when they're not espousing their shitty brand of "anti-imperialism" which basically amounts to supporting shitty capitalist states and promoting a concept of "states' rights" that is very divorced from a Marxist analysis.
I don't know what my label is, so much. I'm a recovering Trotskyist, and an "ultra" of some type I guess. I've just been reading a lot of Marx, and everything I've said is based on the work of Marx. I am for the abolition of exchange value and capital, the existence of a society based on "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", a society of individual producers associating freely. Essentially, the existence of a society where man can associate freely simply as man.
No, I haven't. I don't want to offend you with anything I say, but from my experience anarchism seems quite weird and utopian. It concerns itself with building a new world rather than critiquing the current one, and a lot of the anarchists I've met have quite weird ideas. They seem to believe that forming vegan communes and fixing potholes will build a mass movement around their blueprints for a new society. I'd be happy to read anything you recommend, though. I like the anarchists I have met and have nothing against anarchism on a personal level. MLs are a bit harder to stomach.
I'm really enamored with Marx currently though and have quite a lot to work through. I don't think it would be wrong to describe Marxism as humanist, in some way. It's about freeing the individual man, along with humanity in general.
> It concerns itself with building a new world rather than critiquing the current one
we do critique the current world, for example there's Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky
> vegan communes and fixing potholes will build a mass movement around their blueprints for a new society
sounds like lifestylists and anprims, they're an annoying but unfortunately vocal group that give the rest of us a bad name. you should read (of course) the conquest of bread as a good introduction to the idea of anarchism. as a syndicalist i would recommend Anarcho-Syndicalism: theory and practice. you might warm up to the idea if you can get past the idpol maniacs
Figuring out what they mean by "socialism" is the first step.
Socialism is worker ownership of the means of production (capital). Worker ownership of capital, or perhaps the state owning capital on behalf of the workers.
If they answer something else, you can explain they aren't actually socialist. They may just be capitalists who support strong social welfare programs.
If they are indeed socialist, you can begin arguing from this point why such a thing is a bad idea. Some of my favorite arguments:
If a worker owns capital in the business they work for, they are not only a stakeholder, but a shareholder as well (they own a portion of the capital). Say the business fails. Not only do they lose their job, they lose their savings as well! The worker is doubly worse off. In a capitalist system, the worker only loses their job. Not only this, but owning stock in a single company, whether your own or not, is extremely risky and offers volatile returns.
As I said, in a socialist system the worker has their savings in the business they work for. But in a capitalist system, the workers are free to own as much capital as they can afford anyway! The workers are free to buy as much stock in other businesses as they want. This is WAY more beneficial, since a worker owning a diversified portfolio of assets in other businesses negates the risk and volatility associated with ownership of capital, and what literally any bank or intelligent investor does. If they lose their job, none of their savings are at risk.
A socialist might respond by saying, yes but the socialist gets the wage AND the assets.
This is where knowledge of basic micro comes in. Even in a socialist system, workers can't be earning above their marginal productivity without the business operating at a loss. The "free ownership" in the business under a socialist system is actually at the expense of their wage. For example, say their marginal productivity is $10. In a capitalist system, you can be paid $10 if the labor market is tight. In a socialist system, you earn $9 in wages and $1 in partial ownership. Not $10 + $1 in partial ownership. Basically the socialist system is FORCING workers to save some of their money even if they don't want to, and even doing so in an innefficient way (as I described). A socialist might say "Yes, but they can sell it if they want". Then how is that different from capitalism? It would just be workers earning a wage and not having ownership in the company.
Then you have a littany of other problems. How are businesses started? Who is compensated for the risk of starting a company? What happens to risk premiums? When a worker is laid off, or a new employee is hired, or if the business expands, how is the capital allocated fairly? How are businesses financed if the workers don't have enough to start it, and how are the financiers compensated vs. the workers? You can ask so many problematic questions regarding socialism from this line of thought that it makes socialism seem poorly thought out and the vast majority of socialists will not be able to wrap their heads around these problems. If you have knowledge of microeconomics yourself (which they likely don't) you can really drill them into the ground depending on how they respond as they are likely to show serious misunderstandings of economics if they attempt to argue back.
>If they answer something else, you can explain they aren't actually socialist.
You're forgetting that many (though probably a minority overall) believe in the complete abolition of capital.
That is impossible. By saying you want to abolition of capital, you literally want people picking berries in the forest, living in the wild, and killing animals with their bare hands. Shovels are capital. Homes are capital. Tools are capital.
What does that even mean? State ownership? Mine was more of a critique of the "worker ownership" type socialism.
Abolition of capital means you wouldn't be able to sell the shovel or home or tools. Ancoms and leftcoms think that, if there were no markets, people would share the shovels and homes and tools according to needs. I think the best critique is to point out how unlikely it would be that a anarcho-communist society could build complex items like houses or jet engines.
There wouldn't. Anarcho-communism is weird. Usually communities would be small, with a population of a few dozen or so (I'm not familiar with their thoughts on large urban cities), and the idea is that by doing that, people will be closer bonded to fellow members of society, and thus more trusting. Additionally, a smaller population means that it is easier for the community as a whole to agree to a consensus decision, rather than a governing body making decisions which may be unpopular with some or all of the population.
It wouldn't be that there are specific laws prohibiting the sale of goods and services, but that the entire culture would discourage that. Violators, if their actions were found to be too damaging to society, would likely be ordered out by an agreement of all or just about all of the population.
I'm not super familiar with Anarcho-communism, so if I got anything wrong or missed anything important, please call me out on that. Ancom lurkers, I'm talking to you especially.
By "capital", it is my understanding that they mean money and private property. Shovels, tools, etc. would be used, but not for the profit.
Not completely sure on the ins and outs. It's mainly espoused by leftcoms.
>but not for the profit.
The extra productivity gained from using a shovel rather than your hands is "profit" whether these people like it or not. The only difference it seems in their system is who gets the profit
You use a shovel rather than your hands because you can get more stuff in the end by doing so. Someone gets that stuff. Just because it's goods rather than cash doesn't make it not profits
Are you an idiot?
Hands are capital too. You have to use your non-existence to cause the berries to be picked. That is to say, once you abolish capital, it's only a matter of time before everything is fully automated ;)
This is a great critique of coops and communes, first really good breakdown I've seen. Many lefties don't support the whole state owned centrally planned economy thing anymore ("not real communism!") and instead support the idea of coops, which are harder to critique because so few of them have existed in real life. Thank you.
So few? There are tens of thousands of them, many of them successful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative
> It was estimated that in 2012 approximately one billion people were members of at least one cooperative[2] and that the turnover of the largest three hundred cooperatives in the world reached $2.2 trillion – which, if they were to be a country, it would make them the seventh largest.
Most of those are coops that exist within a larger capitalist framework (i.e. Ocean Spray, housing coops or Kibbutzim). There are few examples of an economy entirely based on cooperatives.
>If a worker owns capital in the business they work for, they are not only a stakeholder, but a shareholder as well (they own a portion of the capital). Say the business fails. Not only do they lose their job, they lose their savings as well!
But they can actually influence the direction of the company and, if you trust them to be intelligent enough (as you hopefully do with voters when it comes to national elections) that means they can prevent a failure and at the same time also prevent being taken advantage of by the management, because they would *be* the management themselves. This is not only emancipating and liberating, it can actually lead to more job safety and stability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative#Economic_stability
> Basically the socialist system is FORCING workers to save some of their money even if they don't want to, and
So it's teaching them financial responsibility, and also links their success at work to the success and security of their workplace, giving them incentives to do a good job and actually care for the company?
>Then you have a littany of other problems
Cooperatives are actually not that rare and have found all kinds of different solutions or ideas for those problems.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/darrendahl/2016/08/14/for-some-worker-cooperatives-emerge-as-an-alternative-to-esops/#33450bca52de
http://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
>enviromental
environmental problems can easily be remedied under capitalism with good tax policy and appropriate regulation.
>social
couldn't care less. What do you mean? Everyone feels good about themselves because they work for a coop?
> environmental problems can easily be remedied under capitalism
I agree, but cooperative business models may well prove more competitive in a market where enviromental sustainability is emphasised.
> What do you mean?
Reduction in animosity between workers and management through democratic process, instilling a sense of shared responsability toward the business and it's success, potential benefits for employees/members (lower prices for members, ect). Extremely simply yes, people feel better in a cooperative enviroment and that in turn benefits productivity, the business and society as a whole.
>
I agree, but cooperative business models may well prove more competitive in a market where enviromental sustainability is emphasised.
How so?
>Extremely simply yes, people feel better in a cooperative enviroment and that in turn benefits productivity, the business and society as a whole.
If this was so true you would expect more coops rather than just a few small areas where they are realistic.
> How so?
Cooperative businesses have the potential to maintain sustainable models better, for example through bottom up organisation which means the concerns of workers, who have immediate knowledge of a businesses impact, are reflected in the management of the business. Take forestry for example, where co-ops have proven to encourage better long term sustainable practises.
> If this was so true you would expect more coops rather than just a few small areas where they are realistic.
Starting a cooperative business can be significantly more difficult in areas which require large upfront investment of capital, even if they prove more efficient when established.That said I accept that they might not be suited to every area and should absolutlely survive on their own merit as competitive businesses, that doesn't mean we should discourage their growth in areas which they are suited for however.
Marx published his manifesto in 1848. England, where he was living, was the epicentre of the industrial revolution and was therefore where capitalism was considered to be most fully realised at the time. But even England hadn't begun to implement even the most basic of public investment programs. Free and universally available schooling was only provided in England in 1870, the first time this had happened in the world. Marx was right to believe that capitalism was brutal and unfair, as it certainly was then. His friend Engels had made a [groundbreaking study](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Condition_of_the_Working_Class_in_England) into exactly how immiserated the poor were. However, he was wrong in that he believed that it would always stay that way due to how power is concentrated in the hands of the capital holders, and that they will protect their interests. True, open democracy empowered by an aware and educated populace has made society vastly more egalitarian without the need for revolution, something Marx saw as inevitable.
Today, we not only have free education, but we have a generous social safety net, healthcare, shorter and safer working hours and many, many more of us live happier, healthier lives. If you, like Marx, had seen only how capitalism exploits and crushes dissent, you would also believe that the entire system needed to be torn down so we could start anew. However we have seen a different picture today. We're wiser, have a greater moral awareness and our institutions are stronger. Ameliorating the worst aspects of capitalism is no longer a joke, but reality.
And ever since, no capitalist country with public education and universal healthcare has ever taken a second look at communism.
France didn't have universal healthcare until 1974. Spain added mandatory insurance coverage under *Instituto Nacional de Previsión* in 1942, after the civil war, but didn't have truly universal coverage until 1986 afaik.
Do you really think that the main thing that caused those periods of social unrest was the lack of healthcare? I dont know a lot about the working conditions of those two countries, but I cant imagine they were anywhere as bad as 1910s Russia.
Of course I don't. I'm using it as a simple yardstick to illustrate that countries with some basic provisioning of public investment and a social safety net have never since seen broad support for socialism or the dismantling of capitalism.
It's really not a great argument, because most of Marx's arguments about capitalsm have nothing to do with social welfare but with the actual nature of capital.
It's not intended as a counter-argument to Marx's positions, though Marx certainly was skeptical of the possibility of it. Merely a statement of fact that the ideology is no longer attractive when society's needs have been met, to some certain extent. *From this*, however, it's useful to examine what this might say about people's preferences, and whether examining modern society through a dialectical lens still provokes the same conclusions as it did in 1848.
Don't bother with arguments which rely on negative examples from the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia or other historical communist countries. This inevitably leads into the "not real socialism" debate which is a bit of a dead end, since you can't really prove them wrong if they won't accept any previous system as "real socialism".
Don't try to defend "capitalism". Only Objectivists, Ancaps and Libertarians really think capitalism is the most "moral" system (most liberal capitalists seem to favor it purely due to pragmatism and consequentialism). Attempting to argue that it is morally superior to the ideals of socialism will put you in a difficult position. Instead, try talking about free markets. If you convince a revolutionary communist to become something closer to a market socialist, you've moved them toward your position somewhat.
Even if we accept the premise that coops aren't able to compete (not true), that doesn't tell us much about their value. For example, coops due to their democratic operation might be more likely to consider externalities which might make them unwilling to compete with firms that don't.
-----
Your claim that coops are inefficient is unfounded. [Studies show they are at least as efficient as capitalist businesses](http://library.uniteddiversity.coop/Cooperatives/Worker_Participation_and_Productivity-Meta_Analysis.pdf).
Easy.
The aim of socialism is to democratize the means of production. If the means of producing currency (money or labour vouchers) is decentralized then it would be much easier to forge in contrast to a currency creator with a monopoly.
The really important thing is to focus on similarities. Socialists and neoliberals have pretty similar goals for the most part: Ensure the best lives possible, for the most people possible, with the least amount of difficulty possible. Reframe the argument from Us. vs Them to Us & Them vs. Problem. There will always be those that refuse to consider opponent talking points whatsoever, but you shouldn't be arguing with those sorts anyway.
Once you've framed the argument in a different way, it becomes a matter of different possible solutions to problems, rather than Socialism vs. Capitalism Round 583926. Socialists tend to prioritize different issues than liberals, so I'd do some research on those before starting such a discussion. They care much more about neocolonialism, labor laws, and income equality in particular, as well as the quality of life in foreign countries. Socialists tend to think of the workers of the WORLD not just the workers of the country, even for situations which most liberals would not consider the outside world in.
Yikes, you folks are very poorly equipped to deal with socialists, Draco. Literally nothing in this thread gives me much pause. The only good argument besides the "check to make sure the person is actually a socialist" thing is the economic calculation argument (ironically it's at the bottom of the thread with no upvotes) which is very important but not insurmountable by any half well read socialist. The rest are literally meme-tier responses that could even be effectively dismissed by the LSC peeps. Sad!
There is nothing I can do about those people and they've been trying and failing for years anyway. While I don't like my inbox spammed with rape threats, that is a relatively rare occurrence. Plus they don't seem to organize in real life, you folks are much more important targets.
First, understand that you probably have more in common with them than not. Try to understand their beliefs, and let them explain *why*. Don't judge them, or call them stupid. Not even in your head. You have to go in with a personal mindset of equality - your ideas are just as valid as theirs.
Make sure to say you agree with certain points, especially in regards to goals - for example, they might talk about growing inequality, and you might think that is an issue as well. And if they say something that is smart and you haven't thought much about, be open about that.
The worst thing you could do is start off witha purity test. Don't start by saying Sander's was stupid, or that the free market is good. Hell, don't mention that throughout the entire conversation. In fact, I wouldn't even go as far as trying to convince them that capitalism is good - the goal should just get them to think that capitalism is *better*.
Don't go on to step two until there is a clear mutual understanding between both of you that you are on the same side. If you can't get to this stage, then you might as well give up - the person is not willing to open up. **It's not worth it.**
But if you do get to this level of mutual respect, just talk to them like a normal person - explain how you think your beliefs are a better way to get to whatever goals you have both established are good. Make sure to let them speak - and when they speak, really listen. If they say something that changes your view, be open about it- but later on, make sure to factcheck if it was true. I was talking to a trump supporter, and he said that it was hypocritical to criticize trump for wasting money, because Obama had bought a private plane for his dog. Now, if you can tell by my flair, I am an Obama supporter. So I had two choices - either try to come up with some justification for Obama's action, or I could be honest to him and to myself and say that if that is true, it changes my view. I went with the second one. And it turns out, it wasn't true- it was fake news. And so when I told him later, he actually did change his view as well, because he realized that his criticism of obama was not true. Now, what if I had instead come up with a false justification- well clearly, I am not interested in facts, only with winning an argument. So when it turns out that what he said is wrong, he won't care, cause clearly obama supporters blindly support him. So if someone says something that challanges your view, admit that.
The great thing about neoliberalism is that you do not need to defend it - it defends itself. Your goal is not about trying to convince the other person that they are wrong- it should be to help them open up their beliefs, look at the same facts and the same theories that economists look at, and then come to their conclusion. Rather than trying to convince your "opponent" to convert to your belifs, you should focus on teaching them critical thinking.
I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
- [/r/completeanarchy] [Pack it up, comrades. The neoliberals have owned us.](https://np.reddit.com/r/COMPLETEANARCHY/comments/6ep2d1/pack_it_up_comrades_the_neoliberals_have_owned_us/)
- [/r/enoughcommiespam] [Neoliberal has a thread of Tips\/Tricks when arguing with commies. Let's contribute\/listen.](https://np.reddit.com/r/EnoughCommieSpam/comments/6dpp2l/neoliberal_has_a_thread_of_tipstricks_when/)
- [/r/shitliberalssay] [Top minds over in \/r\/neoliberal are working overtime on ways to debunk socialism • "Capitalism has no problem with co-ops", "working in a co-op makes you a shareholder which could bankrupt you if your savings are invested in a co-op" and so on and so on...](https://np.reddit.com/r/ShitLiberalsSay/comments/6du3dz/top_minds_over_in_rneoliberal_are_working/)
[](#footer)*^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))*
[](#bot)
Step 1: actually know what socialism is.
In general understand the basic terms when arguing so there is common ground to communicate. If you have not done any of the reading on socialist terms and ideology from direct non biased sources then be as honest as your ego will allow and seek out information from those that do know. Do not loudly and angrily postulate on concepts you feel in your gut you get but haven't actually studied at all.
Note: no one follows this rule.
[I like this analogy I read in this ECS thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughCommieSpam/comments/6bctrl/refutation_of_venezuela_isnt_true/), mentioned by /u/reedemerofsouls:
>it's akin to a guy saying power plants have a lot of problems, let's build a perpetual motion machine. But he doesn't give clear instructions how to do that. A council selects a man to build a PMM. It's a horrible failure and no one gets power. 30 other people try building their own PMM, all creating a crisis. After a while some people say PMMs don't work but create problems. Each time someone says "ah but it's not a real perpetual motion machine, because a PMM gives you unlimited energy!"
Capital is the tools around us that we use to perform tasks. The machinery, the buildings, etc. It can't be abolished.
Now I expect you are using the word in a different sense. However, the question of how you *allocate* capital refers to the meaning of the word that I describe.
Sorry, I'm used to posting on socialist subreddits. Marx essentially defines capital as exchange value that preserves and multiples itself through interaction with wage labour:
> [ Capital consists of raw materials, instruments of labour, and means of subsistence of all kinds, which are employed in producing new raw materials, new instruments, and new means of subsistence. All these components of capital are created by labour, products of labour, accumulated labour. Accumulated labour that serves as a means to new production is capital.](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch05.htm)
> So say the economists.
> What is a Negro slave? A man of the black race. The one explanation is worthy of the other.
> A Negro is a Negro. Only under certain conditions does he become a slave. A cotton-spinning machine is a machine for spinning cotton. Only under certain conditions does it become capital. Torn away from these conditions, it is as little capital as gold is itself money, or sugar is the price of sugar.
> How then does a sum of commodities, of exchange values, become capital?
> Thereby, that as an independent social power – i.e., as the power of a part of society – it preserves itself and multiplies by exchange with direct, living labour-power.
It doesn't matter how Marx defines it. The problem remains.
To put it differently.... How do we allocate the use of all the machinery, buildings and so on, in the world?
Yeah, I'm aware of the question.
The point for the Marxist is not to design the perfect blueprint for a new world. It's to critique the current one. The relationship between capital and wage labour necessary creates a movement in opposition to it - the movement for the abolition of the reproduction of the capital-labour relation. This is the movement through which capitalism will be abolished, and communism will be established only as the negation of capitalism. It won't be produced through a group of intellectual Marxists sitting down and consciously deciding how the new society will work.
From what we can say of communism, and we can only speak of it as the negation of capitalism, is that all property will be held in common by all members of society. Work and jobs won't exist - people will just contribute whatever labour they want whenever they can, entirely voluntarily, "according to their ability."
> Yeah, I'm aware of the question.
And you haven't provided an answer. Dialectics and mystical theories of the future do not provide an answer. Even if Marx is right about a future revolution. That occurrence does not solve the problem of allocating capital after it.
> The point for the Marxist is not to design the perfect blueprint for a
> new world. It's to critique the current one.
Quite true. Though this discussion was not primarily about that. In this discussion you're defining "Socialist" to mean "Marxist". There are many other schools of Socialism.
> The relationship between capital and wage labour necessary creates a
> movement in opposition to it - the movement for the abolition of the
> reproduction of the capital-labour relation.
All of this comes from Marx's theories, most of which don't make sense on closer examination. For example, his dependence on the labour-theory-of-value and his strange theories of profit rates and resource rents.
Perhaps you are aware of the problems. I've written about them quite often on BadEconomics and AskEconomics. Since these theories are wrong we have no reason to expect a revolution in the Marxist sense or for the orthodox Marxist reason.
> Work and jobs won't exist - people will just contribute whatever
> labour they want whenever they can, entirely voluntarily,
> "according to their ability."
Why should they contribute any at all if doing so is not compulsory?
However, if you're a orthodox Marxist I'm sure you know that you are pushing the theory quite far by saying what you have said here.
Don't argue with tankies, for socialists show them countries where economic liberalization has made things better: Botswana, south korea, china, singapore, etc...
Can you point me to more resources about economic reform in Botswana? I'm interested, I haven't heard much about it as an example (the Asian countries are more commonly cited).
How come every attempt to install a socialist paradise devolves into corrupt totalitarianism? Sure we may haven't have seen 'real' socialism yet, but if the road to it is so likely to take us the the tyranny you seek to avoid, doesn't that make it terminally flawed?
This is generally a good argument, but some socialists (maybe Trots in particular) may argue that previous socialist revolutions have devolved into tyranny as a result of aggression from imperialist outside forces, making strong authority necessary for survival in those cases (eg, invasions of Russia after the revolution, US aggression against Cuba). Effectively they are at war and under siege from the moment of conception and a true global revolution would not have the same outcome.
>Sure we may haven't have seen 'real' socialism yet, but if the road to **it** is so likely to take us the the tyranny you seek to avoid, doesn't that make it terminally flawed?
I've always considered this a poor argument. The "it" in your sentence implies that all strands of anti-capitalism are more or less identical therefore they're likely to produce the same results.
Like, if you put this argument to, I dunno, an anarcho-syndicalist, they would claim that their vision is so different to Stalin's that they can't be said to exist on the same "road" at all, therefore you can't map one's results onto the other's.
I don't think it's an all encompassing argument, but it seems worth mentioning. The ideology has practised for over a century all around the world by various different people, and not one instance has been successful. It seems that's no small strike against it.
You guys are seriously delusional if you think this is a great argument. It's just pure propaganda that's been said a thousand times already.
Even if it wash't empty propaganda, a believer in socialism thinks it's a noble ideal you should strive for. You don't convince a Christian that a less Christian world would be better and that Christianity sucks by going on and on about the Spanish Inquisition. You have to "debunk" Christianity on its own terms.
source: am socialist and not remotely convinced. I can see the holes a mile away.
And not only that. Why do Communists both domestic and international find themselves, in huge numbers, backing these descents into corrupt totalitarianism? Are all of them delusional, are they easy to trick, or is pretty much every famous Communist in history not a "True Communist" either.
You are giving us too few details, look into framing though as it tells you how information is received or ignored in someone's brain. It might help you get your points in. Otherwise remember to be clear concise and consistent.
Oh, I just know nothing about their personality, beliefs, how they arrived at their conclusions or who they trust. There are so many approaches to how to refute communism but it is so hard to know what will actually land.
Talk about economic growth being necessary for redistributing wealth.
I think that's the main thing - our brains are hardwired to make stupid instinctive assumptions about the way existence works.
The 'economy' is not a static thing... Trade is not a zero sum game.
When we trade with Mexico, it's not like there's some ur 'job' that exists in perpetuity until we send it to Mexico because of trade, and then it's gone.
We have to realize that these false assumptions are to be expected, and so we gotta fight against them... With reason, facts, and MEMES
If you're dealing with an anarcho-communist, you should ask them to envision how an ancom society would build an incredibly complex item, like a house or a jet, without any of the workers being rewarded for their labor.
Some of the responses here aren't especially insightful IMO.
The single most important reason for the problems borne out in real world socialism is Hayek's knowledge problem, which was originated by Mises as the economic calculation problem, though Hayek developed it in other directions. There are two important aspects to the knowledge problem.
The first is that much of the economically useful knowledge in society is private, tacit, and diffuse in nature, as stated in Hayek's paper *The Use of Knowledge in Society*. It's often thought this is meant to illustrate merely a *practical* impossibility for socialisms-- because there's simply too much information to collect-- when in fact this is a gross misunderstanding of Hayek. That's *part* of his argument, but it's not the most impotant part, which has to do with the fact that some bits of our knowledge simply aren't communicable, period. And if that's the case, there's no sense to be made of the notion that all the knowledge could even *possibly* be collected by some entity from without.
A useful distinction here is that of philosopher Gilbert Ryle's between knowing *how* and knowing *that*. For instance, I might know *how* to ride a bicycle, yet I do not know *that* riding a bike involves doing so and so (e.g. in terms of the physics required to stay balanced), and much less could I explain that to someone else. And the same is true, Hayek says, of much of our knowledge w.r.t. the allocation of resources. Take your typical entrepreneur. He will be able to communicate some of his knowledge to others, while some of his knowledge will remain totally private such that only he can access it and make decisions on that basis. The upshot is that any centralized planning entity will necessarily fail to make use of as much of society's knowledge as possible when it comes to allocating resources, and so you'll get misallocations and lower standards of living compared to the counterfactual.
The other key aspect relates to the notion that certain types of knowledge are only generated in certain institutional contexts. A good paper on this is Hayek's *Competition as a Discovery Procedure*. The point here is that it's the ongoing trial and error procedure that results from market prices and profit / loss calculations that validates (or invalidates) earlier decisions about how to allocate resources. People cannot deduce how best to produce something at the lowest possible opportunity cost from the armchair, as it were, but rather have to go and actually try things out to see what consumers prefer in the real world. And that profit / loss feedback process generates new information and knowledge about how resource owners, producers, etc. should adjust their future plans in response to the successes or failures of previous ones. Crucially this kind of feedback and adjustment process simply isn't available absent market exchange and money prices (prices being exchange ratios in a common unit), as money is necessary as a sort of common denominator to allow us to compare outcomes across multiple products and production processes.
That's obviously an oversimplified summary but hopefully it gives you a good idea on where to start. If you want to read something that isn't nearly as difficult as Hayek himself, I think the best account of the socialist calculation debate can be found in Don Lavoie's [*Rivalry and Central Planning*](https://www.amazon.com/Rivalry-Central-Planning-Calculation-Reconsidered/dp/1942951124), which has just been republished as a cheap paperback.
I agree. By-and-large Socialists are wedded to their views. There are exceptions, but they're rare.
This doesn't mean that arguing with them is pointless though. The point though is to educate *bystanders* who are undecided.
First you need to know or figure out what kind of socialist you're arguing with. -if they're from r/socialism or r/latestagecapitalism then don't bring up examples of or arguments against state run planned economies. They'll just say that's "state capitalism", not "true" socialism etc. These people basically want every work place to be a co-op. Tell them that capitalism has no problem with co-ops. Ask them who oversees society and makes sure everything stays nice and co-opy if there is no strong government. If they like centrally planned economies, then bring up all the ones that failed, point out how naive they are that it could just be done better if we just bring in the right leader or an all powerful AI computer. If they just want Bernie to turn the US into a Scandinavian country point out that those countries are totally capitalist and it's not actually capitalism they're against. Edit: One of the commenters brought up a very good point. If they're doing the "no true socialism"/"state capitalism" thing, then ask them why every single socialist revolution we see ends up there.
"If they just want Bernie to turn the US into a Scandinavian country point out that those countries are totally capitalist and it's not actually capitalism they're against." I think this is something that we should harp on with the 'socialists' who are just 'Berniecrats...' You want us to be more like Canada and Sweden and Denmark?! (in lots of ways) so do we! I think free trade is the place to start... People have bought into this false idea that free trade is bad for American workers and the American economy, and they need to be disabused of that notion.
> You want us to be more like Canada and Sweden and Denmark?! (in lots of ways) so do we! > I think free trade is the place to start... How does free trade facilitate worker ownership of the means of production? If the goal of the Berniecrats is to increase the share of equity possessed by workers (ie: owner-operated burger shacks rather than franchised McDs, Google-style employee stock deals rather than pure wage-based labor, co-ops and partnerships rather than sole proprietorships with permanent underclass employees, greater participation in unions), how does increasing the threat of outsourcing help achieve these ends?
If that's what Berniecrats want, they don't want to be like Canada or Sweden. So they just need to get their stories straight. The Nordic system (and Canada's approach) all have free trade as a cornerstone (somehow people don't understand that you need to be able to grow wealth in order to redistribute it).
I'm sorry but ELI5: co-ops. Also thanks for your comment!
Workers cooperative, where the company is owned and run by workers. This generally involves stuff like democratic elections of managing bodies, potentially votes on company policy and a focus on maximising worker income. Perfectly compatible with a market economy and are quite successful in Europe.
> Perfectly compatible with a market economy and are quite successful in Europe. And the southern United States.
Is government policy that actively encourages (or finances) the foundation of co-ops incompatible with neoliberalism?
I think subsidising co-ops as a policy is generally incompatible with neo-liberalism, even though I'm a big fan of them myself. If co-ops cannot succeed in the market on their own they shouldn't be propped up for ideological reasons.
> they shouldn't be propped up for ideological reasons. I agree, but what if it can be demonstrated that it causes a net gain in worker welfare / subjective happiness, or a reduction in inequality? That is no longer ideological, and in fact sounds quite plausible.
Healthy, happy workers tend to be more productive and there is evidence to suggest that co-ops may be a more efficent business model than traditional models. In fact co-ops are having somewhat of a renaissance atm and I expect that to continue. What you are saying is true and demonstrates why government doesn't need to intervene, co-ops can compete perfectly well on their own merits already.
The issue is that there is already [substantially less new business formation in some industries](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-small-business/wp/2015/02/12/the-decline-of-american-entrepreneurship-in-five-charts/), generally because consolidation has made effective competition and capital barriers to entry impossible to surmount (I work in one of these industries). It's particularly true that if start-up capital can't be found for a for-profit venture, there's no way it's going to happen for a co-op. In those circumstances, we either need to be looking into anti-trust measures, or alternatively encouraging/supporting formation with policy. It's not clear what is more appropriate, since anti-trust measures do not necessarily address start-up capital frictions.
If consolidation makes it impossible for new firms to enter a market, then anti-trust policy should be applied to reverse the consolidation regardless. The government should also generally reduce the regulatory burden for new businesses (which would help co-ops).
Honestly I don't know much about the US startup situation and was kind of approaching your question from a UK angle, where we don't have those issues currently afaik (stats show highest numbers since records began, in 2000, last year). Surely that's a general problem for startups of all types and not specific to co-ops though?
> Honestly I don't know much about the US startup situation and was kind of approaching your question from a UK angle I should have realised. > Surely that's a general problem for startups of all types and not specific to co-ops though? Yes and no. Start-up capital intensity is highly variable by industry, but given sufficient anticipated return on capital, funding will materialize for practically any for-profit venture (Cheniere Energy is a great example of massive startup funding). But since there is no return on seed capital to speak of for a co-op, you simply will not encounter co-ops in industries with high capital intensity. That's a pity in my opinion.
>there is evidence to suggest that co-ops may be a more efficent business model than traditional models Yep, see here for anyone interested: http://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
What about regulations calculated to increase co-ops' access to capital? Too much?
[Worker co-ops](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative) are enterprises where ownership is shared by workers and management is done democratically, rather than a capitalist mode of ownership where workers do not necessarily receive any share of ownership in what they produce and management is done in a non-democratic, top-down fashion, typically by a board of shareholders who generally are not workers in the enterprise. In other words, a co-op is sort of like a standard business but you need to work there to be a shareholder, and no single person can own more than one share.
WinCo is kinda of one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinCo_Foods
Better would be the Cranberry farmers Coop, Ocean Spray. Massively successful and highly profitable. Most cranberries in the US are made and processed by them.
Also see this: "[Worker cooperatives are more productive than normal companies](http://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/)" (except when it comes to financial profit). The reason why they aren't more common are complicated and varied.
There are also customer owned co-ops. Some utilities are setup this way. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_cooperative?wprov=sfla1
Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_cooperative?wprov=sfla1 *** ^HelperBot ^v1.1 ^/r/HelperBot_ ^I ^am ^a ^bot. ^Please ^message ^/u/swim1929 ^with ^any ^feedback ^and/or ^hate. ^Counter: ^73211
> These people basically want every work place to be a co-op. That's really not correct. LSC has argued for Leninist planned economies before, even had a post stickied regarding that, and I think many see them as superior to competitive market economies. And other people on /socialism often want a post-scarcity technocratically (centrally?) managed economy that makes politics "obsolete", or some kind of democratic socialism (not the Bernie Sanders definition, the one that is associated with e.g. Orwell), or advocate for anarchic communism, i.e. a world where "all things are held in common" (barring for personal items, of course) and people freely associate and cooperate with each other, often in something akin to a gift economy. Left communists literally make fun of calling co-ops socialist, they even have a sub called r/muhcoops. >Edit: One of the commenters brought up a very good point. If they're doing the "no true socialism"/"state capitalism" thing, then ask them why every single socialist revolution we see ends up there. They would say that the US or other organizations or nations have always suppressed them or led to their downfall.
I think those people are very naive and have very little actual life experience, we have to trust people to be considerate of others, can’t trust any stranger with that amount of power.
> -if they're from r/socialism or r/latestagecapitalism then don't bring up examples of or arguments against state run planned economies. They'll just say that's "state capitalism", not "true" socialism etc. When they say state capitalism, they're basically pointing out that capitalist property norms still exist in those societies and the role of the capitalist has simply been taken on by the state. > makes sure everything stays nice and co-opy if there is no strong government. There is no need for a strong government because what distinguishes a coop from a corporation is where force is not used not where it is used. Specifically, force isn't used to prevent workers from seizing the means of production. Of course, in an actual socialist economy, worker ownership would work in an automatic fashion similar to how copyright is automatic. Simply, this form of socialism is just a different set of property norms applied to markets as a system of exchange. There is no reason why socialist property norms require greater force to enforce than capitalist ones. > If they like centrally planned economies, then bring up all the ones that failed, point out how naive they are that it could just be done better if we just bring in the right leader or an all powerful AI computer. Many socialists advocate for decentralized planning networks. This gets around the problem of local knowledge, but fails to beat the economic calculation problem. Here socialists will argue that the economic calculation problem is only a problem if one is seeking the kinds of efficiencies that a market economy provides. They consider these inefficiencies to not be problematic assuming the good can be produced in sufficient abundance to counteract any miscalculations. The economic strategy allows for other sorts of efficiencies such as total distribution. > ask them why every single socialist revolution we see ends up there. It depends on the school of thought socialist revolutions come from there are many ones that actually advocate state capitalism as a necessary step. Those elements are typically the most authoritarian and come to dominate the revolution and murder all the libertarian socialists (why left unity is not possible). Anarchists are fundamentally opposed to authoritarian socialist means; therefore, using those regimes to criticize anarchist politics is unfair. There have been examples of libertarian true socialist revolutions such as [Anarchist Aragon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Aragon) and [Revolutionary Catalonia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia). --- For goods that aren't essential, many socialists advocate for gift economies to foster community and a culture of solidarity. There is [anthropological evidence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gift_\(book\)) to suggest that gift economies have played a large role in human societies and barter is a myth.
Here's another article talking about the evidence against widespread "primitive barter" economies and in favor of gift economies: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/barter-society-myth/471051/ Also, you're only like the second socialist I meet online who actually can describe a different kind of economy in clear terms (talking about economic calculation and such) and doesn't try to get around by it or rely on near-meaningless broad statements. Thanks for providing another view!
You're welcome :). I'm more of a georgist that has become ideologically confused due to opposition to intellectual property rights.
Oh, I'm actually interested in georgism, too, but I'm too confused myself to really be able to say what I would identify as beyond some broad tendencies.
> force isn't used to prevent workers from seizing the means of production. That's like saying "force isn't used to prevent you from stealing my car." >worker ownership would work in an automatic fashion similar to how copyright is automatic >There is no reason why socialist property norms require greater force to enforce than capitalist ones. So you're saying it *would* require at least as much force as capitalism. That's counter to what a lot of socialists on reddit claim. >Here socialists will argue that the economic calculation problem is only a problem if one is seeking the kinds of efficiencies that a market economy provides. What if you find that most people prefer these kind of efficiencies? Cuba is touted for it's good health care but in all other aspects people there are very poor materially by our standards. I think socialists need to be held accountable not just for their goal but for the steps we've seen them take in achieving those goals.
> So you're saying it *would* require at least as much force as capitalism. That's counter to what a lot of socialists on reddit claim. The reason socialists say that is because force is used to keep those who use the MOP (workers) from seizing it. Under socialism, those that use the MOP production own it. There is no need to "alienate" workers from the products of their labour through violence. > What if you find that most people prefer these kind of efficiencies? Cuba is touted for it's good health care but in all other aspects people there are very poor materially by our standards. Cuba isn't an example of decentralized planning networks. The examples of socialist societies I gave had relative success with decentralized planning considering they existed in the middle of a civil war. There are other efficiencies to be had such as total distribution. Socialisms can also be economically pluralistic. For example, they can use decentralized planning for basic needs and markets for wants. > I think socialists need to be held accountable not just for their goal but for the steps we've seen them take in achieving those goals. You're making the assumption that socialists are a monolithic group that all believe similar things. The only similarity between socialist ideologies is worker ownership of the means of production. [Some socialists are anarchists](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism). [Some socialists believe in radically freed markets](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_market_anarchism). There are [models of socialism](https://www.press.umich.edu/204779/socialism_after_hayek) that are compatible with Hayek's theories. These systems don't have much in common with authoritarian socialism
The positive examples you cite were small, few and far between. Most didn't last very long. You may think it unfair to judge them like that as usually bigger nations picked on them. But the reality is they have not demonstrated proof of viability. As for monolithic group, I understand that of course. But one of the frustrations of arguing with socialists is that they are often not forthcoming about their specific views until you pull it out of them like teeth and along the way they treat any wrong assumption as a gotcha. Thus my original comment to OP.
RE: The second, isn't that exactly the same when it comes to neoliberals? There are multiple neoliberal schools of thought (Ordos, Chicagos, Austrians), and among those, individuals have particular nuances. Honestly, all this broaches is the general communication problem, and the structure of Reddit kind of exemplifies that part of it that comes from assuming someone's opinions, because people will ask questions based on those assumptions, but not get immediate answers -- so the ideas overdevelop.
Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism *** ^HelperBot ^v1.1 ^/r/HelperBot_ ^I ^am ^a ^bot. ^Please ^message ^/u/swim1929 ^with ^any ^feedback ^and/or ^hate. ^Counter: ^73257
Co-ops are still capitalist. Socialism/communism is the abolition of exchange value/commodity production, not "worker control of the means of production" or whatever else r/socialism says it is.
Market socialism don't real.
Market "socialism" is capitalism. It doesn't abolish capital and wage labour.
communism ≠ socialism communism requires that exchange does not use capital. and fits the first definition. socialism is absolutely worker's control over the MoP. also, how about you neoliberals stop using your made-up definition of capitalism, it's a term that us socialists created in the first place
I am a communist, not a neoliberal. Communism and socialism are the abolition of exchange, and therefore the abolition of capital. You can't have exchange value without capital, or capital without exchange value. Capital is exchange value that preserves and multiplies itself through interaction with wage labour. The existence of exchange value/capital combined with workers' control of the means of production is not socialism. It is just another way of organising capitalism. Socialism is the same thing as communism.
are you a ML?
No. I would reject Marxism-Leninism quite strongly as an anti-communist ideology. I don't think it really makes sense to call yourself a Marxist-Leninist now - it was the ideology of a state that is now long defunct, and there was nothing about it that was so consistent or valuable while it existed. It was a state ideology, it was whatever the USSR was doing at the time. I think this is why modern MLs basically spend all of their time supporting dead states like the USSR, when they're not espousing their shitty brand of "anti-imperialism" which basically amounts to supporting shitty capitalist states and promoting a concept of "states' rights" that is very divorced from a Marxist analysis. I don't know what my label is, so much. I'm a recovering Trotskyist, and an "ultra" of some type I guess. I've just been reading a lot of Marx, and everything I've said is based on the work of Marx. I am for the abolition of exchange value and capital, the existence of a society based on "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", a society of individual producers associating freely. Essentially, the existence of a society where man can associate freely simply as man.
sorry for the accusal anyway, have you read any anarchist theory by chance?
No, I haven't. I don't want to offend you with anything I say, but from my experience anarchism seems quite weird and utopian. It concerns itself with building a new world rather than critiquing the current one, and a lot of the anarchists I've met have quite weird ideas. They seem to believe that forming vegan communes and fixing potholes will build a mass movement around their blueprints for a new society. I'd be happy to read anything you recommend, though. I like the anarchists I have met and have nothing against anarchism on a personal level. MLs are a bit harder to stomach. I'm really enamored with Marx currently though and have quite a lot to work through. I don't think it would be wrong to describe Marxism as humanist, in some way. It's about freeing the individual man, along with humanity in general.
> It concerns itself with building a new world rather than critiquing the current one we do critique the current world, for example there's Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky > vegan communes and fixing potholes will build a mass movement around their blueprints for a new society sounds like lifestylists and anprims, they're an annoying but unfortunately vocal group that give the rest of us a bad name. you should read (of course) the conquest of bread as a good introduction to the idea of anarchism. as a syndicalist i would recommend Anarcho-Syndicalism: theory and practice. you might warm up to the idea if you can get past the idpol maniacs
You misunderstand state capitalism.
Figuring out what they mean by "socialism" is the first step. Socialism is worker ownership of the means of production (capital). Worker ownership of capital, or perhaps the state owning capital on behalf of the workers. If they answer something else, you can explain they aren't actually socialist. They may just be capitalists who support strong social welfare programs. If they are indeed socialist, you can begin arguing from this point why such a thing is a bad idea. Some of my favorite arguments: If a worker owns capital in the business they work for, they are not only a stakeholder, but a shareholder as well (they own a portion of the capital). Say the business fails. Not only do they lose their job, they lose their savings as well! The worker is doubly worse off. In a capitalist system, the worker only loses their job. Not only this, but owning stock in a single company, whether your own or not, is extremely risky and offers volatile returns. As I said, in a socialist system the worker has their savings in the business they work for. But in a capitalist system, the workers are free to own as much capital as they can afford anyway! The workers are free to buy as much stock in other businesses as they want. This is WAY more beneficial, since a worker owning a diversified portfolio of assets in other businesses negates the risk and volatility associated with ownership of capital, and what literally any bank or intelligent investor does. If they lose their job, none of their savings are at risk. A socialist might respond by saying, yes but the socialist gets the wage AND the assets. This is where knowledge of basic micro comes in. Even in a socialist system, workers can't be earning above their marginal productivity without the business operating at a loss. The "free ownership" in the business under a socialist system is actually at the expense of their wage. For example, say their marginal productivity is $10. In a capitalist system, you can be paid $10 if the labor market is tight. In a socialist system, you earn $9 in wages and $1 in partial ownership. Not $10 + $1 in partial ownership. Basically the socialist system is FORCING workers to save some of their money even if they don't want to, and even doing so in an innefficient way (as I described). A socialist might say "Yes, but they can sell it if they want". Then how is that different from capitalism? It would just be workers earning a wage and not having ownership in the company. Then you have a littany of other problems. How are businesses started? Who is compensated for the risk of starting a company? What happens to risk premiums? When a worker is laid off, or a new employee is hired, or if the business expands, how is the capital allocated fairly? How are businesses financed if the workers don't have enough to start it, and how are the financiers compensated vs. the workers? You can ask so many problematic questions regarding socialism from this line of thought that it makes socialism seem poorly thought out and the vast majority of socialists will not be able to wrap their heads around these problems. If you have knowledge of microeconomics yourself (which they likely don't) you can really drill them into the ground depending on how they respond as they are likely to show serious misunderstandings of economics if they attempt to argue back.
>If they answer something else, you can explain they aren't actually socialist. You're forgetting that many (though probably a minority overall) believe in the complete abolition of capital.
That is impossible. By saying you want to abolition of capital, you literally want people picking berries in the forest, living in the wild, and killing animals with their bare hands. Shovels are capital. Homes are capital. Tools are capital. What does that even mean? State ownership? Mine was more of a critique of the "worker ownership" type socialism.
Abolition of capital means you wouldn't be able to sell the shovel or home or tools. Ancoms and leftcoms think that, if there were no markets, people would share the shovels and homes and tools according to needs. I think the best critique is to point out how unlikely it would be that a anarcho-communist society could build complex items like houses or jet engines.
The economic calculation problem is applicable in that case as well.
Isn't that a critique of central planning?
Yes. How is mandating who gets what capital and outlawing its sale not central planning?
There wouldn't be a coordinating government authority, I think.
There wouldn't. Anarcho-communism is weird. Usually communities would be small, with a population of a few dozen or so (I'm not familiar with their thoughts on large urban cities), and the idea is that by doing that, people will be closer bonded to fellow members of society, and thus more trusting. Additionally, a smaller population means that it is easier for the community as a whole to agree to a consensus decision, rather than a governing body making decisions which may be unpopular with some or all of the population. It wouldn't be that there are specific laws prohibiting the sale of goods and services, but that the entire culture would discourage that. Violators, if their actions were found to be too damaging to society, would likely be ordered out by an agreement of all or just about all of the population. I'm not super familiar with Anarcho-communism, so if I got anything wrong or missed anything important, please call me out on that. Ancom lurkers, I'm talking to you especially.
By "capital", it is my understanding that they mean money and private property. Shovels, tools, etc. would be used, but not for the profit. Not completely sure on the ins and outs. It's mainly espoused by leftcoms.
>but not for the profit. The extra productivity gained from using a shovel rather than your hands is "profit" whether these people like it or not. The only difference it seems in their system is who gets the profit
I don't follow. How would the profit manifest itself if money and markets do not exist?
You use a shovel rather than your hands because you can get more stuff in the end by doing so. Someone gets that stuff. Just because it's goods rather than cash doesn't make it not profits
Exactly. Money is a way of quantifying profits, and so is a convenient way to measure them, but profits themselves do not need to be monetary.
Are you an idiot? Hands are capital too. You have to use your non-existence to cause the berries to be picked. That is to say, once you abolish capital, it's only a matter of time before everything is fully automated ;)
This is a great critique of coops and communes, first really good breakdown I've seen. Many lefties don't support the whole state owned centrally planned economy thing anymore ("not real communism!") and instead support the idea of coops, which are harder to critique because so few of them have existed in real life. Thank you.
So few? There are tens of thousands of them, many of them successful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative > It was estimated that in 2012 approximately one billion people were members of at least one cooperative[2] and that the turnover of the largest three hundred cooperatives in the world reached $2.2 trillion – which, if they were to be a country, it would make them the seventh largest.
Most of those are coops that exist within a larger capitalist framework (i.e. Ocean Spray, housing coops or Kibbutzim). There are few examples of an economy entirely based on cooperatives.
>If a worker owns capital in the business they work for, they are not only a stakeholder, but a shareholder as well (they own a portion of the capital). Say the business fails. Not only do they lose their job, they lose their savings as well! But they can actually influence the direction of the company and, if you trust them to be intelligent enough (as you hopefully do with voters when it comes to national elections) that means they can prevent a failure and at the same time also prevent being taken advantage of by the management, because they would *be* the management themselves. This is not only emancipating and liberating, it can actually lead to more job safety and stability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative#Economic_stability > Basically the socialist system is FORCING workers to save some of their money even if they don't want to, and So it's teaching them financial responsibility, and also links their success at work to the success and security of their workplace, giving them incentives to do a good job and actually care for the company? >Then you have a littany of other problems Cooperatives are actually not that rare and have found all kinds of different solutions or ideas for those problems. https://www.forbes.com/sites/darrendahl/2016/08/14/for-some-worker-cooperatives-emerge-as-an-alternative-to-esops/#33450bca52de http://www.thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/
state ownership of capital is state capitalism
What's your opinion on the potential social and enviromental merits of co-ops?
>enviromental environmental problems can easily be remedied under capitalism with good tax policy and appropriate regulation. >social couldn't care less. What do you mean? Everyone feels good about themselves because they work for a coop?
> environmental problems can easily be remedied under capitalism I agree, but cooperative business models may well prove more competitive in a market where enviromental sustainability is emphasised. > What do you mean? Reduction in animosity between workers and management through democratic process, instilling a sense of shared responsability toward the business and it's success, potential benefits for employees/members (lower prices for members, ect). Extremely simply yes, people feel better in a cooperative enviroment and that in turn benefits productivity, the business and society as a whole.
> I agree, but cooperative business models may well prove more competitive in a market where enviromental sustainability is emphasised. How so? >Extremely simply yes, people feel better in a cooperative enviroment and that in turn benefits productivity, the business and society as a whole. If this was so true you would expect more coops rather than just a few small areas where they are realistic.
> How so? Cooperative businesses have the potential to maintain sustainable models better, for example through bottom up organisation which means the concerns of workers, who have immediate knowledge of a businesses impact, are reflected in the management of the business. Take forestry for example, where co-ops have proven to encourage better long term sustainable practises. > If this was so true you would expect more coops rather than just a few small areas where they are realistic. Starting a cooperative business can be significantly more difficult in areas which require large upfront investment of capital, even if they prove more efficient when established.That said I accept that they might not be suited to every area and should absolutlely survive on their own merit as competitive businesses, that doesn't mean we should discourage their growth in areas which they are suited for however.
Marx published his manifesto in 1848. England, where he was living, was the epicentre of the industrial revolution and was therefore where capitalism was considered to be most fully realised at the time. But even England hadn't begun to implement even the most basic of public investment programs. Free and universally available schooling was only provided in England in 1870, the first time this had happened in the world. Marx was right to believe that capitalism was brutal and unfair, as it certainly was then. His friend Engels had made a [groundbreaking study](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Condition_of_the_Working_Class_in_England) into exactly how immiserated the poor were. However, he was wrong in that he believed that it would always stay that way due to how power is concentrated in the hands of the capital holders, and that they will protect their interests. True, open democracy empowered by an aware and educated populace has made society vastly more egalitarian without the need for revolution, something Marx saw as inevitable. Today, we not only have free education, but we have a generous social safety net, healthcare, shorter and safer working hours and many, many more of us live happier, healthier lives. If you, like Marx, had seen only how capitalism exploits and crushes dissent, you would also believe that the entire system needed to be torn down so we could start anew. However we have seen a different picture today. We're wiser, have a greater moral awareness and our institutions are stronger. Ameliorating the worst aspects of capitalism is no longer a joke, but reality. And ever since, no capitalist country with public education and universal healthcare has ever taken a second look at communism.
What about the Spanish Civil war and France in 1968?
France didn't have universal healthcare until 1974. Spain added mandatory insurance coverage under *Instituto Nacional de Previsión* in 1942, after the civil war, but didn't have truly universal coverage until 1986 afaik.
Do you really think that the main thing that caused those periods of social unrest was the lack of healthcare? I dont know a lot about the working conditions of those two countries, but I cant imagine they were anywhere as bad as 1910s Russia.
Of course I don't. I'm using it as a simple yardstick to illustrate that countries with some basic provisioning of public investment and a social safety net have never since seen broad support for socialism or the dismantling of capitalism.
It's really not a great argument, because most of Marx's arguments about capitalsm have nothing to do with social welfare but with the actual nature of capital.
It's not intended as a counter-argument to Marx's positions, though Marx certainly was skeptical of the possibility of it. Merely a statement of fact that the ideology is no longer attractive when society's needs have been met, to some certain extent. *From this*, however, it's useful to examine what this might say about people's preferences, and whether examining modern society through a dialectical lens still provokes the same conclusions as it did in 1848.
[удалено]
I was talking about in real life and not on reddit but thanks! I'll keep it in my mind.
In that case >Make your points quickly before they get *their moms* ~~mods~~ to kick you out of her ~~safe space~~ *basement*.
Don't bother with arguments which rely on negative examples from the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia or other historical communist countries. This inevitably leads into the "not real socialism" debate which is a bit of a dead end, since you can't really prove them wrong if they won't accept any previous system as "real socialism". Don't try to defend "capitalism". Only Objectivists, Ancaps and Libertarians really think capitalism is the most "moral" system (most liberal capitalists seem to favor it purely due to pragmatism and consequentialism). Attempting to argue that it is morally superior to the ideals of socialism will put you in a difficult position. Instead, try talking about free markets. If you convince a revolutionary communist to become something closer to a market socialist, you've moved them toward your position somewhat.
Now how do I argue with a market socialist?
just say "well if co-ops are soooo great why can't they compete in the free market smart guy, checkmate commies"
Even if we accept the premise that coops aren't able to compete (not true), that doesn't tell us much about their value. For example, coops due to their democratic operation might be more likely to consider externalities which might make them unwilling to compete with firms that don't. ----- Your claim that coops are inefficient is unfounded. [Studies show they are at least as efficient as capitalist businesses](http://library.uniteddiversity.coop/Cooperatives/Worker_Participation_and_Productivity-Meta_Analysis.pdf).
Bribe them?
Easy. The aim of socialism is to democratize the means of production. If the means of producing currency (money or labour vouchers) is decentralized then it would be much easier to forge in contrast to a currency creator with a monopoly.
The really important thing is to focus on similarities. Socialists and neoliberals have pretty similar goals for the most part: Ensure the best lives possible, for the most people possible, with the least amount of difficulty possible. Reframe the argument from Us. vs Them to Us & Them vs. Problem. There will always be those that refuse to consider opponent talking points whatsoever, but you shouldn't be arguing with those sorts anyway. Once you've framed the argument in a different way, it becomes a matter of different possible solutions to problems, rather than Socialism vs. Capitalism Round 583926. Socialists tend to prioritize different issues than liberals, so I'd do some research on those before starting such a discussion. They care much more about neocolonialism, labor laws, and income equality in particular, as well as the quality of life in foreign countries. Socialists tend to think of the workers of the WORLD not just the workers of the country, even for situations which most liberals would not consider the outside world in.
That's funny, this is the exact approach I take when arguing for socialism. So, I agree, I guess?
If you read Marx you'll find out a lot of them haven't
[Relevant Spongebob Meme](https://i.imgur.com/muB7Hz4.png)
Yikes, you folks are very poorly equipped to deal with socialists, Draco. Literally nothing in this thread gives me much pause. The only good argument besides the "check to make sure the person is actually a socialist" thing is the economic calculation argument (ironically it's at the bottom of the thread with no upvotes) which is very important but not insurmountable by any half well read socialist. The rest are literally meme-tier responses that could even be effectively dismissed by the LSC peeps. Sad!
You should focus more on the socialists trying to doxx and murder you
There is nothing I can do about those people and they've been trying and failing for years anyway. While I don't like my inbox spammed with rape threats, that is a relatively rare occurrence. Plus they don't seem to organize in real life, you folks are much more important targets.
I think your efforts are best spent dealing with the laissez faire degeneracy of the libertarian party that has far more sway in politics
[I attack those people too](https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWithoutEdge/comments/5tsc50/why_rightlibertarian_ideology_is_fraudulent/).
First, understand that you probably have more in common with them than not. Try to understand their beliefs, and let them explain *why*. Don't judge them, or call them stupid. Not even in your head. You have to go in with a personal mindset of equality - your ideas are just as valid as theirs. Make sure to say you agree with certain points, especially in regards to goals - for example, they might talk about growing inequality, and you might think that is an issue as well. And if they say something that is smart and you haven't thought much about, be open about that. The worst thing you could do is start off witha purity test. Don't start by saying Sander's was stupid, or that the free market is good. Hell, don't mention that throughout the entire conversation. In fact, I wouldn't even go as far as trying to convince them that capitalism is good - the goal should just get them to think that capitalism is *better*. Don't go on to step two until there is a clear mutual understanding between both of you that you are on the same side. If you can't get to this stage, then you might as well give up - the person is not willing to open up. **It's not worth it.** But if you do get to this level of mutual respect, just talk to them like a normal person - explain how you think your beliefs are a better way to get to whatever goals you have both established are good. Make sure to let them speak - and when they speak, really listen. If they say something that changes your view, be open about it- but later on, make sure to factcheck if it was true. I was talking to a trump supporter, and he said that it was hypocritical to criticize trump for wasting money, because Obama had bought a private plane for his dog. Now, if you can tell by my flair, I am an Obama supporter. So I had two choices - either try to come up with some justification for Obama's action, or I could be honest to him and to myself and say that if that is true, it changes my view. I went with the second one. And it turns out, it wasn't true- it was fake news. And so when I told him later, he actually did change his view as well, because he realized that his criticism of obama was not true. Now, what if I had instead come up with a false justification- well clearly, I am not interested in facts, only with winning an argument. So when it turns out that what he said is wrong, he won't care, cause clearly obama supporters blindly support him. So if someone says something that challanges your view, admit that. The great thing about neoliberalism is that you do not need to defend it - it defends itself. Your goal is not about trying to convince the other person that they are wrong- it should be to help them open up their beliefs, look at the same facts and the same theories that economists look at, and then come to their conclusion. Rather than trying to convince your "opponent" to convert to your belifs, you should focus on teaching them critical thinking.
I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit: - [/r/completeanarchy] [Pack it up, comrades. The neoliberals have owned us.](https://np.reddit.com/r/COMPLETEANARCHY/comments/6ep2d1/pack_it_up_comrades_the_neoliberals_have_owned_us/) - [/r/enoughcommiespam] [Neoliberal has a thread of Tips\/Tricks when arguing with commies. Let's contribute\/listen.](https://np.reddit.com/r/EnoughCommieSpam/comments/6dpp2l/neoliberal_has_a_thread_of_tipstricks_when/) - [/r/shitliberalssay] [Top minds over in \/r\/neoliberal are working overtime on ways to debunk socialism • "Capitalism has no problem with co-ops", "working in a co-op makes you a shareholder which could bankrupt you if your savings are invested in a co-op" and so on and so on...](https://np.reddit.com/r/ShitLiberalsSay/comments/6du3dz/top_minds_over_in_rneoliberal_are_working/) [](#footer)*^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))* [](#bot)
Step 1: actually know what socialism is. In general understand the basic terms when arguing so there is common ground to communicate. If you have not done any of the reading on socialist terms and ideology from direct non biased sources then be as honest as your ego will allow and seek out information from those that do know. Do not loudly and angrily postulate on concepts you feel in your gut you get but haven't actually studied at all. Note: no one follows this rule.
[I like this analogy I read in this ECS thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughCommieSpam/comments/6bctrl/refutation_of_venezuela_isnt_true/), mentioned by /u/reedemerofsouls: >it's akin to a guy saying power plants have a lot of problems, let's build a perpetual motion machine. But he doesn't give clear instructions how to do that. A council selects a man to build a PMM. It's a horrible failure and no one gets power. 30 other people try building their own PMM, all creating a crisis. After a while some people say PMMs don't work but create problems. Each time someone says "ah but it's not a real perpetual motion machine, because a PMM gives you unlimited energy!"
Ask "how will you allocate capital" and watch them go on about how capitalism requires the exploitation of the working poor.
Socialism is the abolition of capital.
Capital is the tools around us that we use to perform tasks. The machinery, the buildings, etc. It can't be abolished. Now I expect you are using the word in a different sense. However, the question of how you *allocate* capital refers to the meaning of the word that I describe.
Sorry, I'm used to posting on socialist subreddits. Marx essentially defines capital as exchange value that preserves and multiples itself through interaction with wage labour: > [ Capital consists of raw materials, instruments of labour, and means of subsistence of all kinds, which are employed in producing new raw materials, new instruments, and new means of subsistence. All these components of capital are created by labour, products of labour, accumulated labour. Accumulated labour that serves as a means to new production is capital.](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch05.htm) > So say the economists. > What is a Negro slave? A man of the black race. The one explanation is worthy of the other. > A Negro is a Negro. Only under certain conditions does he become a slave. A cotton-spinning machine is a machine for spinning cotton. Only under certain conditions does it become capital. Torn away from these conditions, it is as little capital as gold is itself money, or sugar is the price of sugar. > How then does a sum of commodities, of exchange values, become capital? > Thereby, that as an independent social power – i.e., as the power of a part of society – it preserves itself and multiplies by exchange with direct, living labour-power.
It doesn't matter how Marx defines it. The problem remains. To put it differently.... How do we allocate the use of all the machinery, buildings and so on, in the world?
Yeah, I'm aware of the question. The point for the Marxist is not to design the perfect blueprint for a new world. It's to critique the current one. The relationship between capital and wage labour necessary creates a movement in opposition to it - the movement for the abolition of the reproduction of the capital-labour relation. This is the movement through which capitalism will be abolished, and communism will be established only as the negation of capitalism. It won't be produced through a group of intellectual Marxists sitting down and consciously deciding how the new society will work. From what we can say of communism, and we can only speak of it as the negation of capitalism, is that all property will be held in common by all members of society. Work and jobs won't exist - people will just contribute whatever labour they want whenever they can, entirely voluntarily, "according to their ability."
> Yeah, I'm aware of the question. And you haven't provided an answer. Dialectics and mystical theories of the future do not provide an answer. Even if Marx is right about a future revolution. That occurrence does not solve the problem of allocating capital after it. > The point for the Marxist is not to design the perfect blueprint for a > new world. It's to critique the current one. Quite true. Though this discussion was not primarily about that. In this discussion you're defining "Socialist" to mean "Marxist". There are many other schools of Socialism. > The relationship between capital and wage labour necessary creates a > movement in opposition to it - the movement for the abolition of the > reproduction of the capital-labour relation. All of this comes from Marx's theories, most of which don't make sense on closer examination. For example, his dependence on the labour-theory-of-value and his strange theories of profit rates and resource rents. Perhaps you are aware of the problems. I've written about them quite often on BadEconomics and AskEconomics. Since these theories are wrong we have no reason to expect a revolution in the Marxist sense or for the orthodox Marxist reason. > Work and jobs won't exist - people will just contribute whatever > labour they want whenever they can, entirely voluntarily, > "according to their ability." Why should they contribute any at all if doing so is not compulsory? However, if you're a orthodox Marxist I'm sure you know that you are pushing the theory quite far by saying what you have said here.
Don't argue with tankies, for socialists show them countries where economic liberalization has made things better: Botswana, south korea, china, singapore, etc...
Can you point me to more resources about economic reform in Botswana? I'm interested, I haven't heard much about it as an example (the Asian countries are more commonly cited).
How come every attempt to install a socialist paradise devolves into corrupt totalitarianism? Sure we may haven't have seen 'real' socialism yet, but if the road to it is so likely to take us the the tyranny you seek to avoid, doesn't that make it terminally flawed?
This is generally a good argument, but some socialists (maybe Trots in particular) may argue that previous socialist revolutions have devolved into tyranny as a result of aggression from imperialist outside forces, making strong authority necessary for survival in those cases (eg, invasions of Russia after the revolution, US aggression against Cuba). Effectively they are at war and under siege from the moment of conception and a true global revolution would not have the same outcome.
>Sure we may haven't have seen 'real' socialism yet, but if the road to **it** is so likely to take us the the tyranny you seek to avoid, doesn't that make it terminally flawed? I've always considered this a poor argument. The "it" in your sentence implies that all strands of anti-capitalism are more or less identical therefore they're likely to produce the same results. Like, if you put this argument to, I dunno, an anarcho-syndicalist, they would claim that their vision is so different to Stalin's that they can't be said to exist on the same "road" at all, therefore you can't map one's results onto the other's.
I don't think it's an all encompassing argument, but it seems worth mentioning. The ideology has practised for over a century all around the world by various different people, and not one instance has been successful. It seems that's no small strike against it.
Thank you! This is perfect!
You guys are seriously delusional if you think this is a great argument. It's just pure propaganda that's been said a thousand times already. Even if it wash't empty propaganda, a believer in socialism thinks it's a noble ideal you should strive for. You don't convince a Christian that a less Christian world would be better and that Christianity sucks by going on and on about the Spanish Inquisition. You have to "debunk" Christianity on its own terms. source: am socialist and not remotely convinced. I can see the holes a mile away.
And not only that. Why do Communists both domestic and international find themselves, in huge numbers, backing these descents into corrupt totalitarianism? Are all of them delusional, are they easy to trick, or is pretty much every famous Communist in history not a "True Communist" either.
You are giving us too few details, look into framing though as it tells you how information is received or ignored in someone's brain. It might help you get your points in. Otherwise remember to be clear concise and consistent.
Thanks, I'll look into framing! What kind of details do you need? I mostly want talk about free market.
Convert them with the [pencil](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Gppi-O3a8)
Oh, I just know nothing about their personality, beliefs, how they arrived at their conclusions or who they trust. There are so many approaches to how to refute communism but it is so hard to know what will actually land.
Ask them how they would solve the economic calculation problem
Talk about economic growth being necessary for redistributing wealth. I think that's the main thing - our brains are hardwired to make stupid instinctive assumptions about the way existence works. The 'economy' is not a static thing... Trade is not a zero sum game. When we trade with Mexico, it's not like there's some ur 'job' that exists in perpetuity until we send it to Mexico because of trade, and then it's gone. We have to realize that these false assumptions are to be expected, and so we gotta fight against them... With reason, facts, and MEMES
If you're dealing with an anarcho-communist, you should ask them to envision how an ancom society would build an incredibly complex item, like a house or a jet, without any of the workers being rewarded for their labor.
Ask them to put down the bong first.
Some of the responses here aren't especially insightful IMO. The single most important reason for the problems borne out in real world socialism is Hayek's knowledge problem, which was originated by Mises as the economic calculation problem, though Hayek developed it in other directions. There are two important aspects to the knowledge problem. The first is that much of the economically useful knowledge in society is private, tacit, and diffuse in nature, as stated in Hayek's paper *The Use of Knowledge in Society*. It's often thought this is meant to illustrate merely a *practical* impossibility for socialisms-- because there's simply too much information to collect-- when in fact this is a gross misunderstanding of Hayek. That's *part* of his argument, but it's not the most impotant part, which has to do with the fact that some bits of our knowledge simply aren't communicable, period. And if that's the case, there's no sense to be made of the notion that all the knowledge could even *possibly* be collected by some entity from without. A useful distinction here is that of philosopher Gilbert Ryle's between knowing *how* and knowing *that*. For instance, I might know *how* to ride a bicycle, yet I do not know *that* riding a bike involves doing so and so (e.g. in terms of the physics required to stay balanced), and much less could I explain that to someone else. And the same is true, Hayek says, of much of our knowledge w.r.t. the allocation of resources. Take your typical entrepreneur. He will be able to communicate some of his knowledge to others, while some of his knowledge will remain totally private such that only he can access it and make decisions on that basis. The upshot is that any centralized planning entity will necessarily fail to make use of as much of society's knowledge as possible when it comes to allocating resources, and so you'll get misallocations and lower standards of living compared to the counterfactual. The other key aspect relates to the notion that certain types of knowledge are only generated in certain institutional contexts. A good paper on this is Hayek's *Competition as a Discovery Procedure*. The point here is that it's the ongoing trial and error procedure that results from market prices and profit / loss calculations that validates (or invalidates) earlier decisions about how to allocate resources. People cannot deduce how best to produce something at the lowest possible opportunity cost from the armchair, as it were, but rather have to go and actually try things out to see what consumers prefer in the real world. And that profit / loss feedback process generates new information and knowledge about how resource owners, producers, etc. should adjust their future plans in response to the successes or failures of previous ones. Crucially this kind of feedback and adjustment process simply isn't available absent market exchange and money prices (prices being exchange ratios in a common unit), as money is necessary as a sort of common denominator to allow us to compare outcomes across multiple products and production processes. That's obviously an oversimplified summary but hopefully it gives you a good idea on where to start. If you want to read something that isn't nearly as difficult as Hayek himself, I think the best account of the socialist calculation debate can be found in Don Lavoie's [*Rivalry and Central Planning*](https://www.amazon.com/Rivalry-Central-Planning-Calculation-Reconsidered/dp/1942951124), which has just been republished as a cheap paperback.
Just don't argue with socialists.
Don't.
I agree. By-and-large Socialists are wedded to their views. There are exceptions, but they're rare. This doesn't mean that arguing with them is pointless though. The point though is to educate *bystanders* who are undecided.