Comments by "Regis" (@Timbo5000) on "The Revolution guaranteed inflation - BankWars: Weimar Hyperinflation Episode 2" video.
-
TIK, your definition of socialism is deeply flawed. There is authoritarian socialism, which you seem to focus on in the video, but also libertarian socialism. You even mentioned Bakunin's (a libertarian socialist) criticism on totalitarianism, call him a socialist (true) and then turn around and say that socialism = totalitarianism. You do this at 5:07. This is an internal inconsistency in your argument that requires your attention. You can't both acknowledge Bakunin's heavy criticism of the state and at the same time say that his ideology is for totalitarianism. He was a socialist and anarchist. Authoritarian socialism = totalitarianism. Libertarian socialism is entirely different and highly critical of big governments (or even critical of the government existing at all, if you look at leftist anarchism).
This is not only an issue in this video (though this example is probably the most blatant internal inconsistency in your view of socialism), but across the board I notice that libertarian socialism is a blindspot of yours. Please look into this issue and adjust your definition of socialism accordingly. As it is now, it ignores the existence of libertarian socialism, which is a problem.
I think you should think about how libertarian socialism and leftist anarchism fits into your views of public vs private and capitalism. There's a gap in your logic here. You claim that democratic socialists believed the "lie" of Marx (which is fair enough to say about authoritarian socialism and its use of gradual change to eventually usher in a revolution), but this is completely false for libertarian socialism. You know very well that libertarian socialist and leftist anarchist factions have historically fought authoritarian socialists and are against the state as much as capitalists are (hell, in many cases even more against the state than capitalists generally are).
3
-
@TheImperatorKnight Your response seems to be targeting collectivist libertarian socialism and anarchism. I understand why you see no reason to distinguish between the 'public' in the sense of the state and the 'public' in the sense of for example a commune. Both are collectivist in nature, after all. Wouldn't entirely agree with the term 'totalitarian', but those are semantics. However, the real issue I have with your argument is that libertarian socialism doesn't require collectivised property, as you seem to imply. There is also individualist anarchism and left-libertarianism. These forms of libertarian socialism often espouse not public, but mutual ownership. The easiest example would probably be libertarian market socialism, in which (for example) worker cooperatives compete in a free market. This is socialism because the means of production are owned by workers. Essentially everyone who contributes to a company, shares in its profits (not necessarily equally by the way). Not the public, ONLY those that directly contribute to the company. This also means that capitalism cannot exist, because for someone to gain (partial) ownership of a business means they must be an active partner in it. Not just give money as a one-off and then enjoy the fruits of ownership permanently, even passively if they like. Capital investments can still exist in this market, but they can only be a service for which the company pays a reward, not a means to gain permanent ownership of the company.
There are many more forms of libertarian socialism which do not have completely public ownership of the means of production. End goal of libertarian socialism is to take away what they see as exploitative relationships. Anarchism goes further and seeks to abolish all/most hierarchies in society. I.e. they see wage labour as exploitative because in principle capitalists see humans as mere economic input in their business, as a means to generate profit. With mutual ownership, all people that work for the company are seen as equal partners who together contribute to the company and are entitled to a reasonable part of the profits because of this contribution. I don't see how the simple act of seeing other humans with whom you create something of value as equal partners in business rather than economic input that you must pay the lowest possible wage in order to gain profit for yourself is 'totalitarian'. Or how a free market in which one enters into equal contracts with other people is 'public' while a free market in which people with a lot of capital are allowed to passively profit from ownership of others' companies because of initial investments is 'private'. I see both of these examples as 'private'. They are both free markets that simply operate on different ground rules on who is entitled to the profits of a business.
1
-
@bobhabib7662 _"If libertarian socialism doesn't require collectivized property, then why does it need income tax to feed it? lol - that's literally collectivizing someone's property is it not?" _
Libertarian socialism does not require that. I already named that market socialism in particular is really just a free market in which companies that are owned by those that directly contribute to said company compete with one another. Income tax or not. Could be a stateless society, even. Several forms exist.
"Collectives are socialist ideas even if they might be applied in a capitalistic society."
Are you one of those people that think "free market = capitalism"? Because that's untrue. Capitalism is just one of several ways to organise a free market. Capitalism is by far not the only type of free market and no, capitalism is not "just what happens" in freedom either. All myths that have come into existence after capitalism became the norm. We have come to see capitalism as so normal that we cannot imagine another type of free market anymore. Which is only natural when living under an economic system for so long. But it still is untrue.
Capitalism is a free market which emphasises capital growth with elements like wage labour and the ability to gain passive ownership of a company by investment. A very specific type of free market. Solid system, because free market economics are great. But not without flaws.
So to correct you, collectives are socialist ideas even if applied to a _free market_. Yes. That's why that form of a free market is not called capitalism, but something else. It's an anti-capitalist free market.
"And no, just because you are a line worker at Amazon for example, doesn't mean you created anything. Yes, you may have pulled the packages so they can be delivered, but you are getting paid for pulling those packages. That is your contribution and you received payment for it. That's what you agreed to."
Wage labour can exist within market socialism. The LITERAL only difference with capitalism is that all profits are divided among those that directly contribute to the company. And not equally, but fairly according to the actual contribution (at least roughly so, you can't "calculate" someone's contribution always, especially because the value we create is subjective). Obviously someone who does more valuable work will get a higher wage and probably a higher part of the profits too.
The one and only thing market socialism demands is that it is impossible for third parties to passively take profits from a company just because they invested a bit of money. This permanent ownership, regardless of actual contribution to the business, is seen as exploitative by socialists across the board.
Sure, the person that built a company and continues to be an important part of keeping it afloat deserves a much higher pay than a regular worker that stepped in doing an essential, but basic job. But does the capitalist who paid the person that built the company 10.000 dollars 30 years ago as start-up capital deserve 1.000.000 dollars pay from the coffers of the company that others have worked hard to build and expand over the years? No, not if all the capitalist did is pay the money and then sit on his arse doing nothing for the business. Providing start-up investments is an essential service in any market economy, but giving capitalists life-long ownership that entitles them to permanent passive profiteering off the work of others is a bit too much.
The idea of giving people who have NOTHING to do with a company, part ownership of the company and a permanent entitlement to part of its profits is stupid. It makes no sense unless you're trying to create an economy that is massively skewed towards making already rich people richer.
"You will never get rid of "exploitative relationships" as long as there are human beings. The best you can do is create an environment where if you think you're being exploited, you can change companies or start your own. Just another reason that capitalism is superior to collectivist thinking."
There is nothing exploitative about starting a company and hiring people you see as partners together with whom you keep the business afloat. There is nothing exploitative about basic workers receiving significantly less pay than people doing more demanding/complex work, and/or people who gave a lot to build the business up. How this is divided? That's for each company to decide internally, as long as it's reasonable.
What is exploitative is only this: seeing humans as nothing other than economic input for you to personally profit from. With a preference for passive profit from capital investment returns. That is not the standard for humans, not at all. And if you think it is, then you have a very bleak view of humanity.
1