byork
So you're going to cure poverty by mass starvation?

How stupid would someone have to be, to think that the famines and economic collapse that happened under (attempts to implement) socialism are all just some kind of strange coincidence?

That's what you think, isn't it? Barry? They're all just some strange coincidence, and had nothing to do with the attempt to put all social wealth under government control? Aren't they Barry? Tens of millions died of starvation in Russian, China, Ethiopia, Cambodia, North Korea. But nothing to do with socialism, right? Just a coincidence?

You haven't learnt anything either in theory or practice from the history of the last 100 years, have you?

We've already established that
a) you're dreaming of totalitarian government - because, as we have just seen, you can't even think of any example of any human co-operation that would not be under government control, so the violent suppression of freedom under socialism is not some kind of strange coincidence as idiots believe, is it? It follows directly from what socialists are trying to achieve, doesn't it?
b) you're contradicting yourself by stipulating for democracy, because as soon as the masses vote for any human freedom, they to that extent reduce government's control over social wealth. So according to your own theory, you're in favour of exploitation. See why I said you're confused?
c) your limit is itself without limit since there's no reason why a majority shouldn't vote to oppress a minority, which is exactly what you're advocating, isn't it, O Confused One?

JKJ, it would be undignified for me to respond to the inaccurate nonsense in your post.

A basic rule of debate is not to misrepresent the views of others.

Readers may like to visit my blog - C21st Left - which has this statement on its front page: "Why bother?... because I believe in a bright future and want to help make a difference. And I refuse to allow the likes of John Pilger, Tariq Ali and Tim Flannery to be seen as leftists".

I'll move on from OLO for now. Thanks Graham for running my piece.

Yuyutsu

Yes indeed the big question is whether socialism is the road to freedom or to serfdom. This motivates me to write something on the subject but I can't do it justice right now.

Joe (Loudmouth)

A revolution with the backing of a majority population of well educated worldly wise wage/salary workers in an advanced capitalist society would be on far firmer ground than the 20th century revolutions in Russia, China etc. They would be in a far far better position to deal with the schemers and scum. Although no guarantee of immediate success of course.

JKJ

If you make something for your own use (or as a gift) it is part of the consumption process. In a socialist society it would not belong to society. The food you cook is for you to consume or share as you wish. The wood and tools you purchased out of your wage or pension to build a chair belong to you as does the completed chair.

According to The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1979):

"The objective preconditions for the socialization of the means of production originate deep within capitalist society. They result from the increasingly social character of large-scale machine production, as expressed in the rising level of concentration and centralization of production, the intensification of the social division of labor, the expansion of ties between the different branches of industry and the types of production within each country, and the formation and development of the world economy."

BTW, famines were quite normal in backward agrarian economies. They weren't invented by communists.

David
"If you make something for your own use (or as a gift) it is part of the consumption process."

No it's not.

For example, look at the definition of production: https://www.google.com.au/search?q=production+definition&oq=production+definition&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i65l3j69i60l2.2451j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=119&ie=UTF-8

"In a socialist society it would not belong to society."

Yes it would. As soon as you shared it with anyone for any exchange of any kind, it would be privately-owned "social wealth" and therefore illegal.

"The food you cook is for you to consume or share as you wish."

As soon as we move beyond Crusoe economics, to the facts of actual social co-operation, we find that there is no way to distinguish this social wealth, from the privately-owned social wealth that socialism purposes to get rid of.

Both your examples, and what byork is calling "social wealth" have in common that they involve getting products made by others, mixing one's labour to transform them somehow, and then sharing them with others which will almost always be in exchange for some goods and services sometime.

The only theoretical exceptions would be:
1. Crusoe-type situation, and
2. purely charitable giving with no future return or expectation of return of any kind, ever.

You have not escaped this difficulty by definition, but only by arbitrary declaration. But the above total overlap remains, so you have not made the necessary distinction.

What I'm asking you to do is identify the *principle* that would differentiate them?

"The wood and tools you purchased out of your wage or pension to build a chair belong to you as does the completed chair."

So are you saying you couldn't exchange the chair with anyone else for anything, and you couldn't share the chair in expectation of any return?

Yes? No?

The attempt to socialise production but not consumption is doomed to failure, but even if it wasn't, how could you *not* be talking about a totalitarian government, in which all human co-operation was presumptively illegal, and all exchanges implicating production under the arbitrary rule of a political commisariat?

byork

You have not shown that I have misrepresented you.

The problem isn't misrepresentation on my part, it's confusion on yours.

You cannot square the circle. You cannot reconcile the idea that government must have total control over what you are calling "social wealth", with the ideas of
1. human freedom, or
2. democracy.

As soon as you permit any human freedom over anything that is or might be productive, it's "social wealth", and you're contradicting yourself. That's not a misrepresentation, I'm using your definition of social wealth, remember?

If you need democracy to stop socialism from degenerating into mass starvation and mass murder, then what does that tell you?

But if you don't, then why have democracy at all, since it represents a risk that the masses might vote to permit private ownership of productive property? According to your theory, that's "exploitative", remember?

Can you see that you are dreaming that, under a socialist government the production and innovation of capitalism will continue as usual? Your confusion is laughable. It's worse than that, because what you're suggesting is exactly what the communists of the last century actually thought. You have learnt nothing.

So you're dreaming of a situation in which everyone's labour and property is owned by the government, and all production is taken by the government - in other words totalitarian government - and then you're contradicting yourself in hoping that democracy will stop socialism from resulting in mass starvation and mass murder?

If I'm misrepresenting you, then answer my questions?

Do you think the mass starvation that happened under socialism in the 20th century was all just some kind of strange coincidence? Nothing to do with the attempt to socialise the means of production? David?

JKJ

Trying to collectivize peasant agriculture was indeed often a disastrous business. Fortunately peasant agriculture has vanished from many places and will be gone entirely in a few generations.

Socializing modern agriculture will be a lot easier although perhaps harder than manufacturing.