Post by senter on Dec 3, 2022 22:25:33 GMT -5
(A good video here - youtu.be/hactcmhVS1w )
From the beginning, socialism has been presented as the antidote to capitalism. It has been explained as the end of capitalism and as its replacement. Socialism is the antithesis of capitalism. It is its opposite. It would liberate the working class from exploitation by capital. It would be a change, in fact a reversal, of the relationship of employer to employee.
Then along came Marx who wrote volumes analyzing capitalism and suggesting socialism (he called it "lower communism") as the undoing and replacement for capitalism. And his writings were so thorough and detailed that the socialist world adopted those writings as their code, their rationale, --their "bible". Now, --and since the 20th century, --any serious socialist movement or party has stated that it follows Marx and has declared itself to be Marxist. Marx has become the standard. Anytime a person now mentions socialism, Marx comes to mind in some way. Marx is tied to all ideas of socialism. All socialists quote Marx in explaining and defending their positions. All attempts at revolution by communist parties have been led by Marxists. Hence, Marx is the standard for socialism even if there is some variation from his formulations. Advocacy for socialism is not guided by a mechanical, memorized, rote approach to Marx.
In Marx's writings and in the literature of every Marxist effort by any communist party or any socialist party, you would find slogans like "workers unite and cast off the chains of wage slavery". Think about that. And BTW the slogan accurately reflects the intentions of the Marxian perspective. "Workers unite" suggests a collective effort. "Cast off the chains of wage slavery" suggests an end to the relationship of worker to boss. So how does this different relationship of socialism appear? What are its characteristics?
To answer that and see the clear difference, we can look at the recognized characteristics of each, -socialism and capitalism, -to see the difference. Except that in the case of socialism, we are limited to its principles since no socialist economy has ever actually existed. (More on that later.)
Capitalism is in every case a system in which private ownership and control of production produces private profits. The profits are "private" because they are not shared proportionately with everyone involved. Instead, the owner(s) of the business are the ones who decide what to produce, where to produce, when to produce, how to produce, and what to do with the profits. The relationship of worker to boss is one in which the worker has no meaningful say in any of those decisions. S/he is told what to do, when, where, and how. There is no democracy for the worker.
Socialism is, in every description and proposal, a system in which the workers own and control their work life. They collectively and democratically decide what to produce, where to produce, when to produce, how to produce, and what to do with the profits. They decide what the pay scale is to be. They hire and fire the CEO and Board members. They have equal representation on the Board along with invited Board members. Their relationship of worker to boss is identity: they ARE the boss.
Note: if these conditions of socialism are not present, IT ISN'T SOCIALISM. (And since there has never been a nation in which these conditions are present, there has never been a socialist country.)
So capitalism is private ownership and control of production for private profit.
Socialism is collective worker ownership and control of production for mutual benefit and the benefit of the community and nation.
In any capitalist economy, there are necessarily many, many details, laws, rules, programs, policies, etc. which are all designed to keep the basic capitalist structure of economy running smoothly. Some of those capitalist economies have tried a more "free market" approach, as the U.S. had in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. But due to workers rebelling and revolting against the harsh conditions that result, it doesn't seem to last very long.
Then there is the majority of capitalist economies in which various socially-beneficial programs are implemented in order to appease the workers, be a bit more fair to them, keep them content by providing perks and benefits, and win their loyalty. It is still capitalism even with all this socially-beneficial dressing because the underlying economic system is one in which private ownership and control of production rules for the production of private profits. These socially-beneficial programs are established FOR capitalism. The relationships of production haven't changed. Notice that after FDR got his New Deal and all his other socially-beneficial programs passed, he said "I saved capitalism".
So it's incorrect to speak of a capitalist country being a "mix of socialism and capitalism". There is no support or incentives for worker ownership and control in a capitalist economy. Yes, we have some worker co-ops in the US, but their development is not a goal of government and they are few. So the system is capitalism.
From the beginning, socialism has been presented as the antidote to capitalism. It has been explained as the end of capitalism and as its replacement. Socialism is the antithesis of capitalism. It is its opposite. It would liberate the working class from exploitation by capital. It would be a change, in fact a reversal, of the relationship of employer to employee.
Then along came Marx who wrote volumes analyzing capitalism and suggesting socialism (he called it "lower communism") as the undoing and replacement for capitalism. And his writings were so thorough and detailed that the socialist world adopted those writings as their code, their rationale, --their "bible". Now, --and since the 20th century, --any serious socialist movement or party has stated that it follows Marx and has declared itself to be Marxist. Marx has become the standard. Anytime a person now mentions socialism, Marx comes to mind in some way. Marx is tied to all ideas of socialism. All socialists quote Marx in explaining and defending their positions. All attempts at revolution by communist parties have been led by Marxists. Hence, Marx is the standard for socialism even if there is some variation from his formulations. Advocacy for socialism is not guided by a mechanical, memorized, rote approach to Marx.
In Marx's writings and in the literature of every Marxist effort by any communist party or any socialist party, you would find slogans like "workers unite and cast off the chains of wage slavery". Think about that. And BTW the slogan accurately reflects the intentions of the Marxian perspective. "Workers unite" suggests a collective effort. "Cast off the chains of wage slavery" suggests an end to the relationship of worker to boss. So how does this different relationship of socialism appear? What are its characteristics?
To answer that and see the clear difference, we can look at the recognized characteristics of each, -socialism and capitalism, -to see the difference. Except that in the case of socialism, we are limited to its principles since no socialist economy has ever actually existed. (More on that later.)
Capitalism is in every case a system in which private ownership and control of production produces private profits. The profits are "private" because they are not shared proportionately with everyone involved. Instead, the owner(s) of the business are the ones who decide what to produce, where to produce, when to produce, how to produce, and what to do with the profits. The relationship of worker to boss is one in which the worker has no meaningful say in any of those decisions. S/he is told what to do, when, where, and how. There is no democracy for the worker.
Socialism is, in every description and proposal, a system in which the workers own and control their work life. They collectively and democratically decide what to produce, where to produce, when to produce, how to produce, and what to do with the profits. They decide what the pay scale is to be. They hire and fire the CEO and Board members. They have equal representation on the Board along with invited Board members. Their relationship of worker to boss is identity: they ARE the boss.
Note: if these conditions of socialism are not present, IT ISN'T SOCIALISM. (And since there has never been a nation in which these conditions are present, there has never been a socialist country.)
So capitalism is private ownership and control of production for private profit.
Socialism is collective worker ownership and control of production for mutual benefit and the benefit of the community and nation.
In any capitalist economy, there are necessarily many, many details, laws, rules, programs, policies, etc. which are all designed to keep the basic capitalist structure of economy running smoothly. Some of those capitalist economies have tried a more "free market" approach, as the U.S. had in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. But due to workers rebelling and revolting against the harsh conditions that result, it doesn't seem to last very long.
Then there is the majority of capitalist economies in which various socially-beneficial programs are implemented in order to appease the workers, be a bit more fair to them, keep them content by providing perks and benefits, and win their loyalty. It is still capitalism even with all this socially-beneficial dressing because the underlying economic system is one in which private ownership and control of production rules for the production of private profits. These socially-beneficial programs are established FOR capitalism. The relationships of production haven't changed. Notice that after FDR got his New Deal and all his other socially-beneficial programs passed, he said "I saved capitalism".
So it's incorrect to speak of a capitalist country being a "mix of socialism and capitalism". There is no support or incentives for worker ownership and control in a capitalist economy. Yes, we have some worker co-ops in the US, but their development is not a goal of government and they are few. So the system is capitalism.