People invented fire before capitalism
Can socialism or communism have incentives (even without markets)?
Submitted 1 day ago by DylanMc6@lemmy.dbzer0.com to nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
Comments
als@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
There’s the principle of “give it forward” which could be used in a gift economy.
If you want something at a bar, you don’t order for yourself, but for someone else. It fosters solidarity.
DylanMc6@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Does that apply to labor vouchers?
BuboScandiacus@mander.xyz 2 hours ago
“ Labour voucher”is a fancy way to say money
birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 hours ago
Labour vouchers are different. They’re a bit of the “work an hour, you can buy something that takes an hour to work for it with it”.
The upside they have, is that unlike money, such labour vouchers are not transferrable from person to person, nor for any means of production. Therefore, they can’t become capital. It also ensures that there’s no way to accumulate money by having a lot of money - you either work for the voucher or you can’t buy.
The issue with such labour vouchers however, is that they still tie your worth to a sort of wage. It’s money, just by another means. So people who work 60 hours a week and burn themselves out, would have an advantage, whereas people who couldn’t work, would have issues. Sure, that could be taken into account, but essentially it retains a form of wage labour.
mrdown@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Yes, working for the good of the whole society. No more giant compaies buying smaller companies to steal their inovation or just to destroy them.
DylanMc6@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Well I think that all monopolies should be split into different companies which would then be given to the workers who would then collectivize them
mrdown@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Which rarely happen and when it happen lot of money is spent. It is small workaround for a broken system
Lumidaub@feddit.org 1 day ago
If you want to participate in society, you’ll do what’s good for society to the best of your ability.
Steve@communick.news 1 day ago
Of course they have markets. Any society that grows much larger than where everyone can personally know everyone else, will need some form of money. The options are eithor barter directly, or use some form money as a medium of exchange and accounting. Barter can work in groups up to even several hundred at least, maybe even a couple thousand. But beyond that, some form of money will naturally emerge.
DylanMc6@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 hours ago
What about market socialism (the people own the means of produced through a market economy, regardless of whether it’s planned or NOT)
Steve@communick.news 18 hours ago
Don’t know what you’re actual question is. You need to be more specific.
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.
DylanMc6@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 hours 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?
coherent_domain@infosec.pub 21 hours 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.
dogbert@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
Buddy, take a look at the pyramids, machu pichu, or any ancient wonder. Humans have achieved unfathomable greatness with absolutely no profit incentive.
zxqwas@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Socialism: what do you call the nordic countries? They have reasonable incentives. If they qualify then yes.
Communism: does China qualify as communist or are they some kind of former communist with capitalist reforms?
dogbert@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
Nordic countries are social democracies. Workers have never owned the means of production. It’s a form of capitalism. This was a concession the ruling class gave to the workers since much of Europe wanted the benefits that Soviet citizens were receiving under socialism. Social democracy was used to appease the civilians so they don’t revolt. The rich get to stay rich, and the poors get free health care.
coherent_domain@infosec.pub 1 day ago
China never even advertize themselves as a communist country, the official speak is “Socialism with Chinese Characteristic”
slazer2au@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Yes.
bryndos@fedia.io 1 day ago
No, capitalism now owns all the carrots and all the sticks in the world.
Turnips and branches have never successfully motivated anyone.
DoubleDongle@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
People like doing things. Most of them do, at least.
I think the big thing here is that money and markets only stop properly existing in the most extreme ideas of communism. I think the most communist system that’s still viable would just be one where it looks like capitalism on the surface but unions are strong enough to openly challenge the government and there’s a soft cap on income and wealth. And markets and incentives don’t go away there, so it’s a moot point.