this post was submitted on
189 points (80% like it)
250 up votes 61 down votes

socialism

unsubscribe19,404 readers

~26 users here now

Workers of Reddit, Unite!

Welcome to r/Socialism, a reddit for those who consider themselves socialists, who wish to engage in constructive, civil discussion about world events and socialist ideas. People from all socialist organizations, groups and tendencies are welcome to this subreddit, along with those who are just curious about socialism, as long as they're respectful. Socialists who have blogs are encouraged to post links to their new articles.

Socialism: Democratic control of the means of production by the working class for the good of the community rather than capitalist profit.

New to Socialism? Suggested Readings!


'Why Socialism?' by Albert Einstein

'The Principles of Communism' by Frederick Engels

'The Soul of Man Under Socialism' by Oscar Wilde

'The Communist Manifesto' by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels

'Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism' by V.I. Lenin

'The Case for Socialism' by Alan Maass

'The Transitional Program' by Leon Trotsky

'Marx for Beginners' by Rius

Marxism FAQ

Audio/Video

Reading Marx's 'Capital' with David Harvey

WeAreMany.org: Talks on Socialism & Marxism


Abusive posts/comments, personal attacks, trolling and posts/comments with racist, sexist and homophobic content are not tolerated. For any questions, comments, concerns and suggestions, please feel free to message the moderators

a community for

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

all 157 comments

[–]Only_One_TRevolutionary Socialist 63 points64 points ago

Jack London really hit the nail on the head when talking about this in The Iron Heel.

‘I have listened carefully, and there is only one name that will epitomize you. I shall call you that name. You are machine-breakers. Do you know what a machine-breaker is? Let me tell you. In the eighteenth century, in England, men and women wove cloth on hand-looms in their own cottages. It was a slow, clumsy, and costly way of weaving cloth, this cottage system of manufacture. Along came the steam-engine and labor-saving machinery. A thousand looms assembled in a large factory, and driven by a central engine wove cloth vastly more cheaply than could the cottage weavers on their hand-looms. Here in the factory was combination, and before it competition faded away. The men and women who had worked the hand-looms for themselves now went into the factories and worked the machine-looms, not for themselves, but for the capitalist owners. Furthermore, little children went to work on the machine-looms, at lower wages, and displaced the men. This made hard times for the men. Their standard of living fell. They starved. And they said it was all the fault of the machines. Therefore, they proceeded to break the machines. They did not succeed, and they were very stupid.

‘Yet you have not learned their lesson. Here are you, a century and a half later, trying to break machines. By your own confession the trust machines do the work more efficiently and more cheaply than you can. That is why you cannot compete with them. And yet you would break those machines. You are even more stupid than the stupid workmen of England. And while you maunder about restoring competition, the trusts go on destroying you.

‘But when you squeal you don’t state the situation flatly, as I have stated it. You don’t say that you like to squeeze profits out of others, and that you are making all the row because others are squeezing your profits out of you. No, you are too cunning for that. You say something else. You make small-capitalist political speeches such as Mr. Calvin made. What did he say? Here are a few of his phrases I caught: "Our original principles are all right," "What this country requires is a return to fundamental American methods— free opportunity for all," "The spirit of liberty in which this nation was born," "Let us return to the principles of our forefathers."

‘When he says "free opportunity for all," he means free opportunity to squeeze profits, which freedom of opportunity is now denied him by the great trusts. And the absurd thing about it is that you have repeated these phrases so often that you believe them. You want opportunity to plunder your fellow-men in your own small way, but you hypnotize yourselves into thinking you want freedom. You are piggish and acquisitive, but the magic of your phrases leads you to believe that you are patriotic. Your desire for profits, which is sheer selfishness, you metamorphose into altruistic solicitude for suffering humanity. Come on now, right here amongst ourselves, and be honest for once. Look the matter in the face and state it in direct terms.’

‘I’ll show you another way!’ he cried. ‘Let us not destroy those wonderful machines that produce efficiently and cheaply. Let us control them. Let us profit by their efficiency and cheapness. Let us run them for ourselves. Let us oust the present owners of the wonderful machines, and let us own the wonderful machines ourselves. That, gentlemen, is socialism, a greater combination than the trusts, a greater economic and social combination than any that has as yet appeared on the planet. It is in line with evolution. We meet combination with greater combination. It is the winning side. Come on over with us socialists and play on the winning side.’

[–]IAmRasputinInternational Socialist Organization 28 points29 points ago

/r/occupywallstreet is absolutely teeming with this.

[–]JarJizzles 23 points24 points ago

Real occupiers arent though. Libertarians invaded and have been trying to push their agenda ever since it started. No one really buys it though. The subreddit also suffers from all kinds of sockpuppeting and trolling.

[–]IAmRasputinInternational Socialist Organization 4 points5 points ago

Along with this is the sentiment that electing a certain slightly-more-progressive democrat will fix everything.

[–]JarJizzles 0 points1 point ago

Except Ows is pretty opposed to electoral politics. They have no misconceptions about the futility of voting. The great hype of Obama is partly what catalyzed ows.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uulrsPHsSw

[–]mrpopenfreshsocial democrat 2 points3 points ago

Yeah, those guys ruin everything.

[–]Dentarthurdent42Lennonist 0 points1 point ago

"Real occupier" sounds an awful lot like "true Scotsman"...

[–]BullNiroAnticapitalist 2 points3 points ago

Yeah but I think JarJizzles is referring to people on the ground and those who participate in assemblies.

I mean, you wouldn't call Stalin a socialist... or at least I wouldn't.

[–]norwegianwood90Trotskyist 7 points8 points ago

Sadly, a large number of people have bought into the "capitalism instead of corporatism" notion. Clearly when capitalism was almost entirely laissez-faire and unfettered, things were brilliant for all of us; ask the child laborers working 16 hours in overcrowded, stuffy factories.

[–]DogBotherer 0 points1 point ago

There's market socialism, in the style of Hodgskin or similar, and then there's the Laissez-Faire - which is just corporatism on steroids.

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points ago

"We just need a gentler, more loving capitalism!"

[–]LeonTrotsky_on_speedTrotskyist 25 points26 points ago

"But not social democracy, because that's like socialism, or something. Ron Paul 2012."

[–]adigabearDemocratic Socialism 19 points20 points ago

A completely free market will have a bourgeoisie upper class who will control the mass media and therefore the politicians. These politicians will make sure their overlords will stay in power by legislating corporatism and cronyism.

And I didn't even start talking about poor people not getting a proper education, health care, worker rights, and even jobs.

[–]anthony955 4 points5 points ago

That's already the case and we're not a free market.

[–]jambonilton 1 point2 points ago

To be fair, a 'completely free market' is a bit of an oxymoron. It's like a saying a 'football game without rules'.

[–]Party_of_LeninRevolution OR Bust! 17 points18 points ago

Right-libertarians seem to have difficulty grasping the inevitability of capital becoming concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. Even without resorting to state manipulation (taking advantage of "barriers to entry"), there are all sorts of means by which big-capital is able to crush the petite-bourgeoisie and secure monopolies (or situations approaching such.)

AND that is all while debating the topic within the parameters of their "market-god" fantasy land. Real capitalists don't seem to have the problems with cheating, bribery, and otherwise gaming the system that their utopian libertarian fanboys do.

[–]Jamesx6 14 points15 points ago

Capitalism is like gravity. It promotes and rewards greed. Therefore everyone has a need to pull more money/resources for themselves. Eventually the more massive entities will eat up the smaller ones. Companies will merge or be bought out and monopolies are inevitable regardless of the presence of government. I don't understand how libertarians can't see that. They think the magic hand of the free market will solve all problems when nothing could be further from the truth.

[–]Party_of_LeninRevolution OR Bust! 4 points5 points ago

Reactionaries: In love with their enslavement since FOREVER.

[–]santasdickAnarcho - Syndicalist 14 points15 points ago

i have a professor who is an "anarchist" and by that i mean he is an anarcho - capitalist.

i hear this shit every time i try to have a discussion with him, our debates never go anywhere because of this sentiment.

[–]forwormsbravepercy 2 points3 points ago

what does he teach?

[–]santasdickAnarcho - Syndicalist 5 points6 points ago

environmental sociology

[–]forwormsbravepercy 2 points3 points ago

weird

[–]santasdickAnarcho - Syndicalist 5 points6 points ago

i think stephan moleneaux has brain washed him

[–]forwormsbravepercy 8 points9 points ago

TIL...and shuddered. I hate it when people abuse the word anarchism. All anarchists are anti-capitalists, period!

[–]hitandmiss 1 point2 points ago

Is it because capitalism has rules? I'm confused, but seriously interested in why anarchists are all anti-capitalists.

[–]forwormsbravepercy 7 points8 points ago

No, it is because anarchists are opposed to hierarchy and coercion. Capitalism is inherently coercive and hierarchical.

[–]hitandmiss 2 points3 points ago

Oh, that makes a lot of sense. Thanks. I probably should have realized this.

[–]pzanonworkers of the world, relax! 🚬 7 points8 points ago

Yeap, all anarchists are also socialists. It was only after the 1st international in fact that there was even a clear distinction between authoritarian leftists (Communist Party communists) and anti-authoritarian leftists (anarchist communists). :)

(if you want to learn more...)

[–]LDL2 -2 points-1 points ago

nope look it up in a dictionary.

[–]forwormsbravepercy 1 point2 points ago

ooooooook

[–]Dancing_Lock_Guy 0 points1 point ago

The dictionary definition includes the etymology and differing historical and current uses of the term. The political definition of anarchism, summarized, is extremely decentralized voluntary self-government based on free association.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points ago

You should tell him that "anarcho-capitalism" is an oxymoron.

Addendum: Makes about as much sense as a "pacifist-warmonger"

[–]JarJizzles 1 point2 points ago

"capitalist-democracy" is another one of those oxymorons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6HMQM7Lo58

[–]hitandmiss 1 point2 points ago

He thinks that the phrase "there is too much democracy" is hogwash, though.

French Revolution, have you taught us nothing?

[–]dezmodium 4 points5 points ago

Cronyism is the logical conclusion of capitalism. After all, what is more profitably advantageous than acquiring the pen to write the rules?

[–]pzanonworkers of the world, relax! 🚬 7 points8 points ago

my response: Predominantly, do capitalists individually own the means of production, as opposed to workers? Yes or no? Well, that's the definition of capitalism, and that's also precisely what we oppose, so if you support it suck it up and call it capitalism.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]pzanonworkers of the world, relax! 🚬 4 points5 points ago

I would suggest a great deal more workers would in fact own their own means of production in absence of state created barriers to entry into the market.

True! Which is why I always chuckle at libertarian "opposition" to regulation, when in fact they tacitly support government interventionism if it reinforces capitalist / coercive notions of property. A truly free market is inherently socialist.

[–]legweed 0 points1 point ago

Not everyone in the united states can be entrepreneurs, for them to exist, the overwhelming majority have to be workers. Workers should own the means of production through democratic means.

[–]BrotherSonchristian anarcho-communist 4 points5 points ago

isn't corporatism just a grown-up capitalism?

[–]thesorrow312 2 points3 points ago

Commies used to say capitalism leads to fascism. I guess they just didnt know it would be corporate fascism

[–]cancercures 8 points9 points ago

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power” - Benito Mousolini

[–]Olpainless 7 points8 points ago

Commies used to say capitalism leads to fascism

Some of us still do.

[–]zawamarkCoptic Socialist 4 points5 points ago

People who say "it's not capitalism, it's corporatism!" have probably never taken microeconomics in their lives. Free market policies and deregulation result in monopolies, oligarchies, and cartels......which are elements of corporatism. This is one of the first things you learn in microeconomics. This is why the state intervenes in the economy and why Keynesian economic policy is used, which has its own set of problems I might add.

[–]JarJizzles 4 points5 points ago

Sort of but not really. What they teach is the theory of capitalism, which requires all sorts of impossible assumptions such as perfect competition with no barriers to entry, no collusion etc in order to work smoothly. Free markets are an impossible fantasy and it is because of this that real life capitalism results in monopoly, cartel.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]zawamarkCoptic Socialist 4 points5 points ago

I have a Masters in Econ.

[–]zawamarkCoptic Socialist 2 points3 points ago

Free markets require perfect competition which has four main assumptions: many buyers and sellers, a standardized product, no barriers to entry and exit, and symmetric information.

  • Symmetric information: this assumption means consumers are aware of the different prices offered by the many sellers in a specific market for a certain product.

  • Standardized product: all products sold by the many sellers are of relativity the same quality.

  • No barriers to entry and exit: it is easy to enter the market with a specific product and it is easy to exit the market if you suffer a loss.

  • Many buyers and sellers: in a free market, there is supposed to be many different firms that offer the same standardized products. However, firms in the same market often collude which results in less output and higher prices. Monopolistic competition begins to develop. In the airline industry for instance, different airline companies collude and plan which routes each will fly to and fro. This has resulted in higher prices for consumers while reducing costs for the companies involved in collusion.

All this information is found in Hall and Lieberman's Principles of Microeconomics, 5th Edition

[–]anthony955 0 points1 point ago

His post is pretty spot on. Even US history proves it. The more free the market the more likely you'll see monopolies and oligopolies. We saw this in the late 1800s, and we're seeing it today.

[–]gizram84 0 points1 point ago

It's important to understand the massive distinction between free market capitalism vs corporatism. Making the mistake of thinking it's the same thing is disingenuous.

[–]xudoxis 1 point2 points ago

It's funny, the whole "That's not capitalism that's corporatism" is to anarcho-capitalism as "That's not real socialism is" is to socialism.

I.e. every conversation about the subjects starts and usually ends with those tropes and no meaningful progress is made in either direction.

[–]Althuraya 6 points7 points ago

Except the arguments made don't work both ways. What libertarians and most people say is socialism really isn't socialism by definition, not even close. Corporatism is capitalism strait and fair by a technical definition.

Not the same argument, not the same points.

[–]crazypants88 -2 points-1 points ago

No it really isn't the same, sure capitalism is a loaded term but it's generally defined, especially by libertarians, as being a market system with little or no state intervention. By that definition it's mutually exclusive from corporatism which requires massive state intervention.

[–]Althuraya 2 points3 points ago

Markets do not define capitalism; if they did, why not just call it marketism since that's all libertarians care to define. Libertarians equate trade itself as capitalist which should make you question why the hell the word capitalism exists if it doesn't define itself specifically. If you don't know what capital is, then you don't know what capitalism is and you don't belong in discussing it.

[–]DogBotherer 1 point2 points ago

Exactly, money only becomes capital when it's employed in certain ways. If I go to the market and buy some eggs for their use value (i.e to eat them for my breakfast), I'm not deploying capital nor being a capitalist. Nor am I if I make some shoes, sell them and use the money to buy those eggs I want to eat.

[–]crazypants88 0 points1 point ago

That's true, you can have a market and not capitalism(as defined by libertarians). Well no, they don't equate trade with capitalism, like I've said, it's popularly defined as a market with little or no state intervention. Capital in the economic sense is not exclusive to capitalism, even if you define capitalism differently than libertarians. For instance a farmer in medieval France would need capital to start his farm even though capitalism didn't exist as a concept back then.

[–]anthony955 2 points3 points ago

You're thinking of lasseiz-faire, which is a type of capitalism with no regulation. Corporatism does not require any government involvement. In fact trade guilds were a good example of non-state corporatism. What you're thinking is neo-corporatism, which was a movement that promoted strong unions and the government acting as a 'social partner'.

So, yes corporatism can be fully incorporated into a capitalist system. In fact, the freer the market the most likely it'll be a corporatism as companies merge and form trusts on their path to 100% market share. We see it today with the massive amount of oligopolies we have.

[–]crazypants88 0 points1 point ago

Regulation can easily happen in a lasseiz-faire system, it would simply be independant private regulatory firms. If corporatism comes from the word corporation, then yes it by definition needs state involvement in the economy. Corporations as they're usually defined as state enabled entities. The word comes from being incorporated into the state.

Today there's not a country that has a free market, so the fact oligopolies exist today doesn't mean it's a result of free markets. In actual free market oligopolies or cartels are incentivized towards their own destruction as when they collude on price fixing the one member of the cartel that would break the cartel and offer lower prices would reap the others profit. Plus in a free market there are no artificial barriers to entry to make entering the market unecessarily hard or even illegal.

[–]anthony955 0 points1 point ago

Well, corporatism doesn't come from the modern interpretation of corporation. It comes from the basic definition derived from Latin, It just means a body of people controlling a single entity. A corporation is one of those entities, unions are another, clans, guilds, sects, tribes, etc. All of those can be a form of corporatism. Only in neo-corporatism is government involvement required, as the government must control the economy to benefit the unions. Right now it's like that, but to benefit corporations.

You're right, there are no free markets, and honestly I can't think of a remotely successful example of one. However, the US is ranked the 4th freest market in the world, or technically the freest considering Singapore and Hong Kong are propped up by China and New Zealand is propped up by Australia. It's not an all-or-none thing, it's a scale. The closer to a free market a country gets, the more traits you see. In the US we're the closest we've been since the late-1800s, and as a result we're seeing a massive wealth disparity and oligopolies forming. We'd see monopolies, but Sherman Anti-Trust stops that.

You're correct, oligopolies collude, a lot. In fact, the big three cereal companies just got busted for that a few years ago (Post, General Mills, Kellogg's). Oil companies, food producers, telecom, non-PC video game, record, and movie producers, etc. They all collude.

Market barriers seem to have little to do with changing that. Sure, in telecom the barriers are ridiculous due to the limited spectrum and space (you can't put cell towers everywhere). However, in foods, there's nothing stopping you from making cereal, you just have to deal with the big three's 90%+ market share. This is mostly our own doing though. There's nothing stopping you from taking Ubuntu, coding it to be very user friendly like Windows, then selling it as your own OS. Yet, Windows still has 90% market share and Apple has about 9%, Linux has about 1%.

My opinion on why oligopolies can become so strong has more to do with advertising and habits. Sure, in a free market an underdog can come in to take market share. Firefox is a great example of that, but Firefox had a ton of word-of-mouth marketing during a time where your options were Safari, IE, Opera, and a few smaller browsers such as Neoplanet.

To wrap it up, choice and human reaction are probably the biggest market barrier of all, even with our current regulations. You can have a stellar product, and even reasonable advertising, but if you find a way to get people to use it (like Apple, making their products a stylish accessory that you 'must have or you're not cool') then you'll sink. This drives up costs to get your product out there for people to use, which in itself keeps out any new competition.

[–]xudoxis -3 points-2 points ago

See? This is why it is pointless to have those sorts of conversations, both sides insist on talking past each other using separate definitions for important words.

[–]Althuraya 2 points3 points ago

It's not pointless at all, it's your ignorance. If you want to take libertarian definition of capitalism simply being trade itself then you're welcome to it, but that definition is so broad you should stop claiming to stand for capitalism. The argument of definition of just what the hell capital even is, since we live under a system called capitalism, is extremely important.

[–]xudoxis -1 points0 points ago

Great example of my point! Thank you.

[–]RagarkLibertarian socialist 0 points1 point ago

except the people who say corporatism isn't capitalism hold to the belief that Laissez-Faire capitalism is the only true capitalism, despite capitalism being a umbrella term.

[–]xudoxis 0 points1 point ago

The same can be said of socialism, marxism et al.

[–]RagarkLibertarian socialist 1 point2 points ago

Socialism is an umbrella term for all systems/philosophies/theories that are worker ownership related. What I think you really are driving at is when people say stalinism/leninism isn't socialism. Had it been democratic, then yes, i'd call it socialist. But it wasn't, so I hold it was just totalitarian.

[–]LDL2 0 points1 point ago

The thing is that it isn't either of them. The government is running the show. I made up a word for that once Ordinatioism-from latin meaning the order, as in forced order.

[–]RagarkLibertarian socialist 0 points1 point ago

oh yeah, I told you to send me the paper if you ever wrote it.

[–]LDL2 0 points1 point ago

Started and fizzled out when dealing with other issues. I should get back to that it was turning much longer than expected.

[–]Lightfiend -2 points-1 points ago

This is what I tried to say below, but prepared to get downvoted for pointing out the double standard.

[–]Fozee -4 points-3 points ago

I don't get it. Is this trying to say that corporatism and capitalism are the same word? They aren't, corporatism actually is an important part of leftism in general.

[–]MagmarizerMarxist ☭ 6 points7 points ago

When you point to any flaw in capitalism to a Libertarian or Anarcho-Capitalist they will usually retort by saying "thats not real capitalism thats crony capitalism" or something like that.

[–]Fozee 0 points1 point ago

I pointed out that it's vague and made a factual point, fuck me!

[–]Dancing_Lock_Guy 3 points4 points ago

They aren't the same word. Users here have said that capitalism is too broad a term to be fitted closely to either corporatism or laissez-faire capitalism. Those are two extremes: extreme private, individual ownership of the means of production and extreme state ownership. It's incredibly vague because right-libertarians treat capitalism as a default function of trade. If what defined capitalism were the markets, it would be appropriately be called "marketism", as someone else pointed out. But then why does the term 'capitalism' exist if presumably 'marketism' or some variant thereof is sufficient enough to describe it? It follows that defining 'capital' is a primary focus when discussing capitalism. If you refuse to acknowledge this task, you have no right to defend, let alone discuss capitalism.

[–]Fozee 0 points1 point ago

You didn't respond to any of my posts, at all. You looked at mine and thought that I said something entirely different than what I did.

  1. The picture is vague, that's why I didn't understand what it was saying.
  2. I didn't say they were the same word. I said they weren't.
  3. I wasn't defending capitalism.

[–]Dancing_Lock_Guy 1 point2 points ago

  1. That's fine. I sought to explain that through pointing out the wide spectrum that capitalism encompasses.
  2. I didn't say you said they were the same word. I brought it up for reassurance.
  3. I knew you weren't defending capitalism. I thought I was speaking from an entirely disinterested perspective. I merely reported and summarized the prevailing current of thought in the thread, which is relevant to understanding to the discussion. The 'you' in my explanation was a hypothetical third-party whom you could relate to yourself. When someone asks, 'How do you spell 'gratuitous'?", they don't literally mean how do I spell the word. It's just a stand-in reference to normative convention.

I decided to bring you up to speed so you could see how the others reached the conclusion you did (that the two terms aren't the same). You're correct that corporatism can be an element of leftism (e.g. social democracy); I don't see why you were down-voted.

Though in retrospect it appears my efforts were misguided somewhat since you and I appear to agree on the semantic issue. So I apologize for not clarifying beforehand.

[–]Fozee 0 points1 point ago

Thanks, it's easy to misunderstand each other with the Reddit format.

[–]Dancing_Lock_Guy 0 points1 point ago

Yeah. D: Cheers!

[–]Satong6Minarcho-Syndicalist 0 points1 point ago

You're thinking of Durkheimian "Solidarism" also known as "Tripartism" which used to be clled corporatism until the fascists co-opted it. And no- socialism and Solidarism do not mix well- class warfare as opposed to class cooperation.

[–]crazypants88 -2 points-1 points ago

It's socialism not communism/marxism/stalinism etc. How's living in glass houses treating you?

Seriously though, the two terms are usually properly defined as being not the same. Ignoring these definitions is just as dickish and non-sensical as saying socialism is the same as communim/marxism etc.

[–]wheneverago -2 points-1 points ago

Say "It's Stalinism/Leninism, not Socialism" one more time....

One more goddamn time!

[–]Olpainless 2 points3 points ago

Stalinism/Leninism

Implying the two are the same? o.O

[–]crazypants88 0 points1 point ago

Yeah, that's his/her criticism of the pic in question, that the OP is doing exactly that just with corpratism and capitalism.

[–]Olpainless 0 points1 point ago

But... corporatism falls under the umbrella of capitalism... Stalinism and Leninism are two separate trains of thought...

[–]crazypants88 0 points1 point ago

Not under the definition I and many libertarians use. Again it's a heavily loaded term meaning almost as many different thing to as many people, but as libertarians define capitalism, it and corporatism are mutually exclusive. Stalinism and Leninism fall under the umbrella of socialism according to many people definition, this is why defining your terms is crucial for any meaningful debate.