Comment

Comment on Can socialism or communism have incentives (even without markets)?

coherent_domain@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

Socialism only states the public ownership of means of production (sometimes called capital), but there is no requirement in the removal of market.

One of the way socialism can develop is when the cost of capital is way below cost of labour, making worker owning their own capital trivial.

However, there is really no requirement on the side of removal of market, universal healthcare, or universal educations etc; these are often consequence of a strong public sector and (at least attempts at) efficient allocation of resource. In most places people usually equate socialism with big government, that really is Marx-Leninism.

Marxism–Leninism holds that a two-stage communist revolution is needed to replace capitalism. A vanguard party, organized through democratic centralism, would seize power on behalf of the proletariat and establish a one-party communist state. The state would control the means of production, suppress opposition, counter-revolution, and the bourgeoisie, and promote Soviet collectivism, to pave the way for an eventual communist society that would be classless and stateless.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism–Leninism

Either with market or not, in a socialist society, worker are still compensated for their labor and expertise, often more than a capitalist society, since labor is the more valuable resource given the low value of capital.

source

Sort:hotnew top

DylanMc6@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
Marxism–Leninism holds that a two-stage communist revolution is needed to replace capitalism. A vanguard party, organized through democratic centralism, would seize power on behalf of the proletariat and establish a one-party communist state. The state would control the means of production, suppress opposition, counter-revolution, and the bourgeoisie, and promote Soviet collectivism, to pave the way for an eventual communist society that would be classless and stateless.

Call me revisionist (“Hi, revisionist!”), but how I’d view the two-stage revolution part is like this:

A vanguard party (which would lead a coalition of like-minded socialist parties) becomes the leading party of government through democratic means. If NOT an election, they would take control through revolution. Either way, they’d establish a democratic dictatorship of the proletariat. These parties would be allowed to cooperate like in China, East Germany or the DPRK, as well as to compete like in liberal democratic systems.

Instead of using the state to control the means of production, they’d partner with the industrial unions to handle these means. The state would then be downsized in favor of direct democracy and workers’ councils. Meanwhile, the industrial unions would handle production under a market economy. Both the parties and the unions would work together to promote collectivism. The redistribution of wealth is handled through universal basic income and land would be publicized and taxed.

My take on a two-stage revolution is more of a cross between regular Marxism-Leninism, De Leonism, Georgism, libertarian socialism and market socialism. I’d call it “Market Synthesis Socialism”. What do you think?
source
- coherent_domain@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  Sounds pretty ideal. I am not political scientist, nor do I think political scientist can have solid prediction about success of a macro political system at this level of a abstraction – it is simply too complex of a system.
  
  I feel from the past experiment regarding socialism, there seems to be a conflict between large state and large state serving the will of the people. Power corrupt: for a social democracy to be functional, I believe needs to have (at least the following) two characteristic:
  
  Most people should not have to feel the worry for the lack of resources. Thus, wealth display will naturally be unnesscary, if not frowned upon. Eliminating the culture of admiring people with excessive assets.
  
  A strong democratic system that discourages the consolidation of power under a couple oligarchs.
  
  source
  - DylanMc6@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
    
    for a social democracy to be functional, I believe needs to have (at least the following) two characteristic:
    
    Most people should not have to feel the worry for the lack of resources. Thus, wealth display will naturally be unnesscary, if not frowned upon. Eliminating the culture of admiring people with excessive assets. A strong democratic system that discourages the consolidation of power under a couple oligarchs.
    
    I think so
    
    source