Do you have an example of your true socialist country?

__________________

Would you rather have a walk on part in the war or a lead role in a cage?

by Qwaile45

This is what can be called 'lack of access to the means of production', a worker can work on a machine producing goods all day, yet the second he produces that good and passes it on to be sold he has no thought that he has just used his sacred labor to produce something and had it stolen from him in that same instant. The cultural hegemony of capitalism ensures that workers never actually realize the slave system they live in. You see under feudalism exploitation was clear to see, the peasant had to actually give his product to his lord. Under capitalism however the process is shrouded in what is called the 'automation' of production, in which the 'production line' process ensures the worker has as little personal contact with what he produces.

So no thought is given to the person who owns the bussiness and bought the machine that the wroker uses. The worker is paid for his services, the owner has to pay the employee, the machines up keep (physical plant), the government, the investors, then after bringing everything together makes a small profit on his hard work of bringing all of these different items together and making them work.

I'm sorry but you are delusional if you really think you are a slave, and if you are such a slave to your job, in America and other Capatilist societies, you are free to go out and own your own bussiness make the decisions that will keep you in bussness and be the "slave owner." Seriously, stop looking for other people to carry you and go out and sell your goods on the open market. To be a slave means that you are forced against your will to produce something for your master, at no time in my life have I been forced to work! I have held jobs that i didn't like, so i quit, I have held jobs that i love like the one I have now. My employer up front told me what he expects from me, how much he is willing to pay for performance of my job, and I agreed to it, at no time was i forced to accept his job offer, and at anytime I could have left, I can still leave and go do whatever I wan't.

Wake up and realize that most people want to be free to make their own choices, and go about doing easy work for easy pay so they can play. To think of your boss as a slave owner is disgusting at best. Get off your A@@ and go start your own bussiness and then come back and tell me that all your hard work, was worth the little amount of money you get out of it.

Now for you other laughable point about socialism working, that is soooooo funny, all government systems have someone at the top, so as long as someone is running the show you will always have corruption. No matter what you do to try to make everyone the same, someone will always be smarter, better looking, or have some ability you don't have.

Why do you ask? Would it damage the argument to point out that in the transitional stages there are failed states that were allegedly socialist but were instead examples of state capitalism. And would it damage the argument to suggest that as of right now there are no shining beacons of socialism?

If this forum were discussing the theoreticl changes between mercantislim and capitalism before capitalism took root, would a challenge to point to an example of a capitalist society be valid, particularly as one probably didn't exist at the time?

There have been no socialist states to date. There have been some that have claimed that status but which were perverted. Corrupted failures don't invalidate the theory.

Well in the past some have come close to 'socialism', but in the end most reverted to using currencies to distribute the social product, and as you might know using a circulating currency to measure value is almost impossible economically.

The USSR I believe always had a currency, although at first this currency didn't circulate (more of a voucher).

In short the early socialist experiments had promise, but in the end the socialist states went backwards towards capitalism. Socialism is about abolishing the state, so if you aren't moving towards having the social product distributed without government controls like rationing (socialism is basically a government controlled version of communism) then your going backwards.

Communism is when you don't need government controls to distribute the social product freely, socialism is when you do need them. That's because if you abolished the state straight way you'd have looting etc.

Who made the machine the worker uses? And under what conditions did the worker create the machine?

and when the business gets large enough, it will either be bought or forced out of business by a larger company.

No, but your forced to pay income tax, and pay too much money to large corporations.

Who has said they shouldn't be allowed to do this?

That's what you call a government. Remember what they do? They're meant to be the ones running the country, not the corporations.

__________________
Individuality is the aim of political liberty. By leaving the citizen as much freedom of action and of being as comports with order and the rights of others, the institutions render him truly a freeman. He is left to pursue his means of happiness in his own manner.
– James Fenimore Cooper

So direct distribution of your product without any payment, is um stealing yes bingo, whoop whoop, please, please I wanna live in your Utiopa, NOT!

The government tells you what job your gonna perform, makes you perform your job, then takes the fruits of your labor from you and gives it to everyone else, and you think this is not slavery. Who is the government and makes the decision of what job you get? Who decides who gets what from their labor? Does everyone get the same amount? I bet the fat Socialists government types get the most! Seriously Socialism is dead and has been dead for years.

Also savage-republican, who do you think made the machines which the workers produce with? Other workers of course. It's machines making machines.

My comments were simply related to the 'silent theft' of capitalism.

I will admit, that, that form of government and economy is stupid. Even worse than ours.

__________________
Individuality is the aim of political liberty. By leaving the citizen as much freedom of action and of being as comports with order and the rights of others, the institutions render him truly a freeman. He is left to pursue his means of happiness in his own manner.
– James Fenimore Cooper

No you are misunderstanding how socialist production works.

Well I would merely point out that 'socialism' is by definition short-term state controls put in place so that old capitalist habits don't take over in the transition of reducing the power of class in society. I think even anarcho-communists would admit that some kind of coercive state apparatus is needed to assure common products weren't looted from stores etc.

In socialism everyone makes available to the community the products of his labor, and in return (and onto personal incentive) everyone else makes the products of their labor available to him. Now in socialism the state regulates this process so that people don't take more than they need of a product simply for the sake of it.

I tend to think of socialism in pretty simple terms, you simply have the state abolish currency exchange, seize the means of production and distribution, and distribute the social product to society without money. At first of course coming straight out of capitalism you would need pretty tough controls and restrictions in this distribution, but over time as socialism 'sunk in' you could gradually role back these state control.

Their is of course much disagreement of how many state controls are needed in the transition phase of the dictatorship of the proletariat. I think any non-naive intelligent person would concede that the day after capitalism is overthrown that society won'tt accept socialism without state coercion. You need controls for example so products aren't looted, so they are 'distributed' freely but you could say use a system of bookkeeping or records to ensure hording, black marketering and other capitalist practices didn't reappear.

In the socialist state I think independent economic and social 'commissions' should be established, their job would be to analysis all areas of the social economy and see which ones can be deregulated from state controls. This would be done on an experimental basis mostly, the state could reduce tiny amounts of controls gradually on certain products and see the results, if theft increases then put the controls back up, if theft decreases the controls can be lessoned.

I see constructing socialism as more of a trial and error process in the state economy. Us Communists should never forget that our job is to destroy the state, not perpetuate it, the state is after all the basis of all class society and injustice. But you can't throw the baby out of the bathwater, you destroy the state by dismantling it piece by piece.

Well socialism cannot last if you try and perpetuate the state's power, if you don't reduce state controls then eventually socialism will stagnate and just morph into capitalism. If your not moving to roll back state controls under socialism, then your moving back towards capitalism and not forward towards communism.

Stalinism and the Eastern bloc failed because the states perpetuated the power of the state, not worked towards communism and it's abolition.