Guide to creating a socialist utopia

What you will get from your attempt is much like you got from the former Soviet Union. Simply because human beings aren't even remotely ants. They will always seek after their own best interests but being neither omnipresent nor omniscient they don't always know where their best interests lie or even in what direction to begin the search.

 

The number of misrepresentations of socialism as well as strawmen is incredible.

We know for a fact workers' self-management works. We know for a fact participatory democracy works. We know for a fact that delegative democracy works. We know for a fact consumer cooperatives work. We know for a fact grassroots democracy works. Therefore we know that socialism works.

To deny socialism works, is to deny reality itself.

 

Seek their own best interests, i.e. work for themselves without boss rather than slave away for a capitalist boss, i.e. have a 5-6 hour workday, as opposed to have a 8-10 hour work day.

Socialism is in the self-interest of the workers.

There are no state planners in the socialism proposed in this thread (which is market socialism, or decentralised planned economy).

 

What I propose is moving to Market Socialism, and THEN later introducing decentralized planning Don't want to bite off more than we can chew at one time, so to speak

 

I would have said "start your own PhoebeMart or PhoebeStation", but you limit yourself any way you wish.

You're free to do so in said Capitalist Utopia, after all.

 

I actually think you think this has never been attempted before. I actually think you think this can succeed.

I actually think you know nothing of human nature, having not yet experienced enough of it, or learned of its impact on human history.

 

What type of Market Socialism are you talking about?

 

People do want what's best for themselves, though personally I don't believe people are completely selfish. Your problem is that when you think of socialism you think of the Stalin era in the Soviet Union. I'm in favor of a more Yugoslavian approach, things were going well there before the country split up because of ethnic tensions. Venezuaela is funding worker cooperatives. This approach can work, and people do have the incentive of better working conditions etc. In socialism you get rewarded in proportion to your contribution. No more being exploited by business owners. No more having to support people who don't contribute (by their own choice).

 

So in your socialist world, if you don't contribute, what happens?

 

Things were not "going well there". My family ran from Yugoslavia; my dad was born there. You cannot revise history with me regarding Tito.

Venezuala is a disaster. Have you ever even been there? I have. It's a disaster, and Caracas is one of the most dangerous cities on Earth.

Sounds great. So do unicorns.

 

By market socialism I mean democratically organized worker cooperatives competing in a market.

 

You don't actually believe that (*)(*)(*)(*) do you? The Yugoslavian system was a fascist system under Tito. The whole worker owned cooperative (*)(*)(*)(*) was a lie. Everything was run by Tito. That is why when he died the whole system collapsed.

 

Well...I do reject it. I don't live in a box. I've met self-identified Tea Partiers who did not support Ron Paul in the caucuses because "he didn't have a chance of beating Obama". Moreover, all of them are voting for Romney in the next election instead of Gary Johnson (who is closer to their alleged platform) because "he didn't have a chance of beating Obama."

The fact is there will be no one sent up for SCOTUS nomination who doesn't "fit the agenda" they want, so the SCOTUS fallback is just as disingenuous a reason for the Romney vote.

If people never choose the alternate--even as a form of protest--don't tell me you're different. You know the old saying: Money talks, bull(*)(*)(*)(*) walks? That is what has happened yet again. They were co-opted and now vote the party line of their Republican overlords.

Explain how Romney is more "small government" than Ron Paul? You can't. He's just a white Obama. Look at his record in Mass that he's spinning like a DJ. That was "limited government"? Massachusetts is the least "free" state in the entire 50. He will pick a SCOTUS nominee that meets his big government plus pro corporate views, which is more of the same.

You know, I adore you, but I have zero respect for Tea Partiers who try to feed me bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and call it chocolate.

Not that you would do that, darling snookums pie.

 

That might've been the case 40 years ago. Thousands of people have tried to compete against WalMart. All have failed. Usually because they can't get the same terms from the banks. The banks DO pick the winners and losers, you know.

 

You either go without money (market socialism), labour credits (all variants of planned socialism), or without consumer goods (communism).

I can't speak for RedRepublic, but I don't agree with that kind of socialism if we may call it that. The Party officials were corrupt, self-management was in practice only co-determination because the state, market, and workers contradicted each other's wishes. No one here is advocating a Yugoslavia-styled dictatorship, and thus such appeals to emotion are very weak.

Venezuela is a disaster because Chavez attempted to construct a for-need economy within the framework of a for-profit economy. Price ceilings, meant to make needs take precedence over money, has lead to profits falling and hence a fall in production with widespread shortages as a consequence.

Venezueala merely proves why we need revolution, not reform.

"n socialism you get rewarded in proportion to your contribution. No more being exploited by business owners. No more having to support people who don't contribute (by their own choice)."

This has been succesfully applied to some degree and in some variant in various experiments. So it's not rainbows and unicorns, it's a materialist reality.

 

Don't use fascism without its meaning. Authoritarianism =/= fascism. But you're right in the workers' cooperatives part. The degree to which workers controlled production is heavily overstated.

 

And I notice daybreaker seems to agree with you on that.

In which case we're done. Young Redrepublics "step 1" from the OP has been in place for decades. Since the freedom and financial incentives already exist for democratic worker owned and operated cooperatives, and you aren't interested in passing laws restricting others freedoms, what exactly are you all even advocating for exactly?

Given actual freedom of choice, people have generally opted out of most of the cooperatives and collectives that were created. I expect there will continue to be a steady stream of periodic college kid comunes, grocery store/coffee house cooperatives, and more at varying scales if you care to join one yourself.

Again, people are entirely free to do that in this country, many things like that existed. Given the choice people choose to not work for the "socialist" companies and in the cases where they already were an owner, are typically looking to sell.

On the note of working for themselves though, being an independent contractor is becoming increasingly popular. Essentially you're a business of one with your own equipment, but that buisness is "worker owned" though. How does that strike you? I suppose that would make them petite bourgeoisie though.

I know ignoring reality for imaginary utopias is fun, and I doubt I'll be able to get you to stop. But you seem to be entirely unwilling to address that fact that within this country right now people are entirely able to start the sort of businesses you're talking about, there are financial incentives to do so, said companies had and do exist.

However they are not spreading, because the benifits you are imagining do not materialize. What do you think of this?

Hmmm if you are indeed young than perhaps something you (and apparently some of the others) haven't thought about is retirement accounts. Ever hear of a 401(k)? Most people have something like that, and while I guess you could sink everything in bonds, most people put them into the markets. Essentially becoming capitalists in addition to workers by owning capital and earning dividends from it.

Once the capital gains from those investments equals the surplus labor produced by the employee for their employer there would no longer be any net exploitation of that worker by the capitalist system as Marx defined those terms. Since that should occur roughly when ones investments are on the order of ones annual salary plus 10-20% most middle class people anticipate achieving this.

On that note public ownership of corporations means that when you people talk about seizing the means of production, in practice they are talking about wiping out peoples retirement accounts. Do not expect that to be popular.

 

Freedom of choice is a farce in capitalism, as one's freedom of choice is restrained by financial contraints. Sure, if workers wanted to they could buy their freedom in the form of a worker cooperative. Sure, if slaves really want to be free they could buy their own freedom as they did in Colonial Brazil. There are things that limit freedom other than physical force.

 

All socialist systems fall to fascism. The difference between fascism and communism is that fascists start where communism ends.

 

Socialists don't go in for Utopias - just removing the insane system with the madmen who run it and replacing it with democratic control of the economy for the common benefit.

 

I understand, and somewhat agree....I even started a thread a while back about Romney, and how he basically pegs my cognitive dissonance. I know full well he's an establishment whore...I also know that's why the progressive left didn't mount a major personal attack offensive against him during the primaries...unlike the typically smarmy, underhanded, intellectually dishonest attacks they leveled on the other more conservative candidates...who, of course, represented unacceptable threats to their welfare state.

That said... the most onerous threat to my rights, my liberty, and my economic freedom is the current White House occupant, and I don't care how miniscule the chance may be, his presiding over another USSC appointment would have devastating and long reaching implications to all of the above.

Additionally, the progressive left...this cabal of hard core collectivists... didn't infiltrate the Democrat Party overnight...it took decades....Simply juxtapose "classical liberal" JFK Democrats against the modern animal....

and understanding that, to expect a basically 4 year old, losely organized Tea Party movement to bust down the door, guns blazing, and take over the joint...(tho', I thought 2010 midterms were an extremely gratifying harbinger)...is completely unrealistic and a milquetoast cop out....

as even the greenhorn infantryman understands that wars are won not today, nor tomorrow...but through grinding out victory in a series of little battles....
pumpkin

 

This is ridiculous. You wrongly equate fascism with any generic authoritarianism. The inflated use of fascism has rendered it almost entirely meaningless. Fascism is based on palingenetic ultranationalism. All fascist societies were based on private ownership, attracted capitalists who feared communism.

Fascism =
palingenetic ultranationalism.
totalitarian state.
corporatism (private business subordinate to the state).
social conservative values (patriarchy, anti-abortion).

 

I honestly do like this post for its sci-fi qualities. You've got a Phillip K. Dick thing going on here. But all of those problems seem to be existing under capitalism. Five hundred channels of programming allowed by companies owned by five people. Medicine that works too well for pharmaceutical companies to even sell it to you. Parents that have to spend so much time at work in order to pay for health insurance that their kids wish they could afford parents. Banks that nobody can do anything without and they own you a little more every time you do anything. Capitalism has a slave-collar as well, but it's made out of money so some people kind of like it.

And, that's not speculation. Those are not hypothetical horrors. That's what we have right now.

I don't think that socialism, or any -ism, is the miracle pill that will solve all the problems.

 

Understanding that people will accuse me of being a tin-foiler, I still maintain that if Romney were radically--if at all different--than the man in the White House he would not be allowed to run against him. The "threat" in the White House is no worse than Romney. They are but puppets on the leash of large corporations and umbrella organizations that wish to move to a one world currency and financial oligopoly that will embed their champagne dreams and cavier wishes for time immemorial. All of this nation business is (*)(*)(*)(*)ing with their ability to amass even more money and power.

As to the wars are not won today, nor tomorrow... we're already at Pharsalus. The wolf is at the door. We don't have four more years to wait. Our back is against the wall and the cohorts are lined up. Now is the time for men, not mice.


...sweetums.

 

I can see the logic of this, but I think you'll have fewer problems in the long term if you do it the other way around. It would be harder, sure.