A standard definition of Socialism is “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” — tinman917

That is a quote from Marx, that is not a definition of socialism from Critique of the Gotha Program. Socialism is, according to Marxist ideologies, the midway point between capitalism and communism. Private property has been eliminated at this point (through collectovization into state ownership, non-state collective farms and the like).

I don't think you understand the idea there. What he's saying is that under socialism there will be an abundance since the economy isn't operating under scarcity. There's more than enough for everyone, basically.

Private property has been eliminated at this point — MindForged

Private ownership, or just ownership of capital?

What he's saying is that under socialism there will be an abundance since the economy isn't operating under scarcity. There's more than enough for everyone, basically. — MindForged

Was Marx envisioning a fully automated society? Because a post-scarcity society has never existed.

Private ownership, or just ownership of capital? — Marchesk

For just socialism, it's non-collectivized ownership of capital that's eliminated, usually by having the state own it (but since you still have a state it's not their end goal of communism).

Was Marx envisioning a fully automated society? Because a post-scarcity society has never existed. — Marchesk

Considering his works predated any real socialist society (anything that lasted more than a few months anyway), I think it's pretty clear he wasn't talking about a society that had then-presently existed. It's part of his theory, that in a communist society scarcity is eliminated from the economic system.

I think it's pretty clear he wasn't talking about a society that had then-presently existed. It's part of his theory, that in a communist society scarcity is eliminated from the economic system. — MindForged

And that's an inspiring sentiment, but did he give any compelling reason for why communism would eliminate scarcity? Maybe a better question would be, what did Marx mean by that? Because industrialized societies since his day have shown that human wants expand with the possibility of new goods and services.

Are you here to ask about Marxist theory you've read or be taught Marxism? The former is reasonable, the latter is not.

And the answer is yes, he did.

Are you here to ask about Marxist theory you've read or be taught Marxism? The former is reasonable, the latter is not. — MindForged

More to argue against abolishing private ownership, but what you posted brought up questions as to what Marx meant by a post scarcity society.

In context of the OP and your response, to argue against abolishing private ownership as a means to achieving post scarcity.

Socialism is the doctrine that the means of production should be owned in common, not by a few. So, we could all have shares in GM, but we could not trade them. It is the economic equivalent of direct democracy. We could still hire workers, directors and CEOs all at different wages. We could also buy and sell real and personal property, have savings, etc.

A standard definition of Socialism is “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” — tinman917

Except this is about as ludicrous a definition as saying Capitalism is "two people freely trading commodities". A more workable understanding of socialism, which has been debated, even among self-described socialists for 200 years, would need to incorporate relationships and decision-making within the production process, distribution of goods, wealth, and services, and the political and institutional structures placed to secure and bolster these processes.

More to argue against abolishing private ownership — Marchesk

@Tinman1917 There are two kinds of property: personal property (your books, soup bowl, spoon, cell phone, four-poster bed with a large mirror mounted on the ceiling, and the peasant hovel in which all of this is located. The other kind of property is "capital" property: factories, apartment buildings, railroads, warehouses, farm land, ships, and the like. Capital property produces income for the owner by receiving rent from the apartment buildings, profits from the railroad operations, and so on.

My understanding is that personal property (within reason) would remain personal property. If your residence was a 100 room mansion, that probably would count as a pile of plunder and you would not be staying there (except as a resident of one of the locked attic rooms).

Capital property, on the other hand, would not remain in the hands of the owners. The workers would take it away from the owners, and it would become the property of The People.

The occupants of the former factory/railroad/Bloomingdales store, warehouse, hog farm... would take on the role of stewards of the former business property, to maintain the assets (machinery, buildings, raw materials, etc.) and to carry on production if the democratically elected People's Congress on Production decided that they wanted whatever it was that the factory made.

The people might decide that the light rail vehicle factory would continue in business while the stretch limo plant would be converted to making bicycles.

Is this socialism or communism? I don't much care what it is called. Socialism is fine by me. Screw the dictatorship of anybody.

Because a post-scarcity society has never existed. — Marchesk

I think you should consider greed to be the reason for this? :chin:

I think you should consider greed to be the reason for this? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

I don't. I consider our level of technology as the reason for it.

With ecological catastrophe on the horizon, I don't see how humanity will save itself if it doesn't transition to socialism.

Thanks for all the contributions guys, but I think that what I really wanted was for someone to just address the particular issue of the relation between equality and socialism, as stated in the original post. It’s something that I was thinking about and I wondered what other people thought about it. I suppose that what I want is to (so to speak) peek into someone else’s mind to see how they have thought through this matter. I want them to give me a considered, carefully explained account of their understanding of how (or if) the idea of socialism fits in with the idea of equality.

(I think @Bitter Crank was on the right lines with his brave attempt at saying in a detailed way what Socialism is. And you would need to do this before you could say how equality relates to Socialism.)

Note also that the aim of my enquiry is inquisitorial (in the good sense of the word!) rather than adversarial. By which I mean that I’m not asking my question to get into an argument (much as I love to have a good argument!) or to persuade or be persuaded of some particular position. It’s more that I just want people to share their thought processes with me.

the problem of equality among workers in a socialist state will not be solved by magic. We are not "equal" in physical and mental attributes, needs, personal liabilities and strengths, talents, and experience. We can, however, feel equal as citizens of a community. We all have an "equal share" of citizenship.

Of course, socialism isn't going to come about by magic, either. The struggle to establish egalitarian, fraternal equality is the revolution. Disposing the reign of the extremely privileged-by-wealth is but a necessary step.

An ethos of equality will have to be developed over time; not a long time, certainly. Equality is an urgent goal.

"From each, according to the abilities; to each, according to their needs" is a recognition that personal assets and needs vary. Equality doesn't mean that everybody gets the same sized peanut butter sandwich.

Brothers and sisters: After the Revolution there will be strawberries for everyone!"
A hand goes up.
"Yes, Comrade?"
"I don't like strawberries."
"Comrade", the commissar says menacingly, "After the Revolution you will like strawberries."

It means there is an equality in finding that their needs are met, and their capabilities are utilized, in as much as they can be. The paraplegic has different needs than the athlete. The parents of 3 young children have different needs than a single man. The scholar can not offer the same thing that a dairy farmer can, and visa versa. There is work enough for everyone, and not the same work. There is no point in the scholar sweeping the streets, or the extremely limited intelligence studying.

There must also be an equality of power: Every worker must participate in the exercise of power which is running the society. That doesn't mean everyone becomes a member of the politburo, or something. It means that everyone participates in a central task of socialism, deciding how to meet the needs of the people. Participation on a given day may mean nothing more difficult than responding to a survey about what kind of public transit the individual prefers.

Most of the managing activity in a socialist society should be about substantive material issues. What kind of food can we grow, what kind of breads should be made, how much cotton do we need, are the trains running on time, etc. If the youth decide that mohawk haircuts are just the thing, the people's congress doesn't need to discuss it. Similarly, if learning Esperanto becomes the national craze, so be it. Big C Culture is worth some time. Little c culture should be left to the people to play with.

I always assumed that Socialism had something to do with equality — tinman917

Oh yes.

Equal misery for everyone!

Not for some (like in capitalism), but for everyone.

Thanks to @Bitter Crank for his reply. But I’m still not sure that’s exactly what I want.

I want to hear what people think about the issue of exactly how Socialism relates to equality. An account of some sort of chain of reasoning which gets you from Socialism to equality. And, of course, an important part of such an account would be to say what you think Socialism is. And what you understand by ‘equality’. I myself would probably take equality to mean equality of material standard of living. (Not absolute equality between individuals but a narrow range of inequality.)

So, then I try to get to the chain of reasoning. As remarked in my original post, I noticed that the “from each” motto (as a statement of what Socialism is) doesn’t get to equality. (Despite on the face of it, seeming to do so.) Then (as mentioned by Bitter Crank and others) we have the idea that Socialism is a situation where capital is not privately owned. But rather it is somehow ‘collectively owned’. But neither is it clear how this gets us to equality. Certainly being more precise about what ‘collectively owned’ means here might help.

And, come to think of it, we need to be more clear about what we mean by ‘equality’. Maybe being clear about what we mean by equality is saying something more about HOW the equality is got. For example suppose we had a ‘brute force’ redistributive system where we simply had a law that just took some of the money that rich people have got and gave it to poor people. Is this the manner in which Socialism gets us to equality? I would have thought the method would need to be something more sophisticated than that!

(I agree that equality (obviously) doesn’t mean giving everyone an equal amount of stuff or money. Because, as Bitter Crank says, people have different needs. But this point is included in the “from each” motto. Which, as I have said, doesn’t, in its wider application, yield equality.)

There is no reason that I know of to suppose that socialism can, will, or should result in some sort of rigidly defined "equality". What? Should everybody have exactly the same kind of underwear? How does that make sense? Everyone should get exactly 32 ounces of extra sharp aged cheddar cheese per year? Everyone gets exactly 175 square feet of indoor space? That kind of equality isn't worth the argument, let alone not being worth a revolution.

People should be equally entitled to what they need and equally entitled to utilize their talents. Under this formula there will not be equality of production and consumption. Talents, abilities, physical energy, and environment varies too much to require equality of production. Needs vary too: A ditch digging man needs more calories every day than a bus driving woman. A scientist needs different infrastructure than a musician. Etc. Etc.

The only perfect equality that exists on earth is in the grave.

If we eschew brute force methods, (there are plenty of historical examples) and instead use a bottom-up approach to building the infrastructure of socialism (starting with militant unionism) and ending with a peaceful transition to a worker owned society (probably over a period of decades) we will have defined what "socialist equality" means by the time we achieve it.

Why should people living under advanced capitalism decide for some future socialist society what "equality" should mean?

We will get the kind of socialist society that we work for. If we use organization, education, democratic political tools, and continual worker engagement in the process, we will get something better than if we use either brute force methods or the top-down dictatorship approach.

Ursala LeGuin, a popular sci-fi writer, developed the idea of a rigidly egalitarian society in The Dispossessed. It's a very good novel. She imagined an extreme form of egalitarian anarchism, a project that I would consider more difficult to achieve than socialism.

There is such a thing as human nature, and any political system that intends to succeed by dismissing the inherent characteristics of human beings is doomed to failure. We are somewhat plastic, somewhat malleable, somewhat educable, and so on. But we also have characteristic needs, without which we fail to flourish.

There is such a thing as human nature, and any political system that intends to succeed by dismissing the inherent characteristics of human beings is doomed to failure. We are somewhat plastic, somewhat malleable, somewhat educable, and so on. But we also have characteristic needs, without which we fail to flourish. — Bitter Crank

What is the need for more new humans to have more projects? Your premise is presumably that humans are inherently project-based. We like to achieve mid to long-term goals and continuously work towards X, Y, and Z. Also, presumably, you feel society should set up structures to influence and nurture these projects and engineer them towards productive goals and achievements. Productive here meaning, oh I don't know- more empirical research in the hard and social sciences, new products, increased art production, and more technology, let's say.

But the 10,000 foot view question is, why even make more people and thus more projects in the first place. Clearly you put an assumption that people need to be around to have projects to work towards? Why? It's just nifty?

My master premise is that people are not walking around thinking that life is suffering. If they do recognize that there is suffering in life (there surely is), they do not believe their suffering is so great that they should have no more children.

A derivative premise is that people like being alive pretty well.

But the 10,000 foot view question is... — schopenhauer1

"At what altitude does hypoxia and antinatalism set in?"

"The envelope please..." rip... "and the answer is, '9500 feet'".

Come down, come down.

You still avoided the question, though I do appreciate the humor. However, the question of why new people need to exist in the first place to do projects is not really answered. What about doing more projects in the universe makes that something to value in and of itself? Why have it in the first place?

Well, Schop, I've said several times in several places in the Forum that I believe the universe has no inherent meaning. It expands in all directions and will, as far as we can tell, continue to do that forever. Whether our species suffers excessively, should suffer more, should suffer less, or even whether our suffering is significant is a matter of supreme indifference in an indifferent universe.

Quite singularly on this planet, we are able to give things meaning -- rocks, shoes, trees, stars, flowers, fish, etc. -- including ourselves. We can also deny that things have meaning. You find the quite real suffering we experience meaningless. Meaningless suffering has no purpose. The species that suffers meaninglessly has only one out: extinction. Therefore antinatalism.

I do not view suffering as a good, but I also do not consider suffering to be inherently meaningless. It can be granted meaning. Meaningful suffering is no reason to give up on the species or the universe. Quite the reverse: Our suffering is a very small part of the unfolding life of this planet in the universe. Our lives, our suffering, our world has meaning because we can, we have bestowed meaning on them.

I can not ask you to change: You didn't choose to feel suffering as meaningless, to feel life as meaningless, and to see extinction as a desirable end. I didn't choose my position either, (Didn't Schpenhauer say that we can not choose what we want?) I can't choose your position; you can't choose mine. I may be able to understand your position, but I don't agree with it.

I'm not avoiding the question: I'm rejecting the answer you are looking for.

In the fullness of time, our species will most likely be extinguished. We will be extinguished because we were no longer capable of adapting to new existing conditions and as a species we "failed to thrive". "Fail to thrive" is med-speak for dying. We will die out. Our meaning and our suffering, our pleasures and our joys, will be over and done with. Whether our departure from existence comes in a couple of centuries, a millennia, several millennia, or in another age... we don't/won't know until the end is quite close.

One of the things I find very hard to recognize as desirable in socialism is this idea of each one developing their capabilities to the fullest.

I mean, in a capitalist society, each one's role in society is determined more or less in a democratic fashion. If people think I do a good job making popcorn, they will buy it from me, thus making me a popcorn seller. I recon it does not work like this always, but this is pretty much it.

In a socialist society, we would have to find another way to determine it, since people would not be able to freely trade with each other. I think everyone will agree that not all activities are desirable. Who would determine if I can be a singer or will have to drive a garbage truck? And, if the answer is "popular vote", how many pools would we have to have? If it is the bureaucrats, them we are back to the USSR, where high rank officers would exchange artistic posts for sexual favors.

high rank officers would exchange artistic posts for sexual favors. — Fusilli Al Dente

Isn't that what the capitalist Harvey Weinstein is being prosecuted for?

It isn't clear to me why you think you wouldn't be able to make and sell popcorn under socialism.

I do a good job making popcorn — Fusilli Al Dente

It's dirty work but somebody has to do it. In Minneapolis, superior popcorn is made by CandyLand. After the revolution the workers will continue to make their excellent products, just not for a profit to support the leisure life of Mr. Jack "Candyland" Smith. The workers who pop corn by the bushel now will continue to pop it. Or, they will recruit you to work there. Or you can open a popcorn stand wherever you happen to live.

Markets can exist in a socialist economy. They pretty much have to exist in any sort of workable economy. Do you think a central computer will send you a box of food once a week, and that is what you will be required to eat? That everyone will wear either white or black socks? That you will be assigned at random to work in this or that factory -- maybe Ball Bearings Factory #28? That everybody will wear blue shirts?

No.

Why didn't the Soviet Union have a better consumer culture? Look at their history: The revolution happened during WWI. A lot of people died during that war. Then there was a brief civil war. Then people tried to pull the USSR out of the backward industrial culture of the Czars. Then Stalin took over and fucked a lot of people over. Then WWII came along and many millions of Soviets were killed either in battle or by ruthless Nazi troops. Eventually the war was over, but their agriculture, population economy, and infrastructure west of the Urals had to be rebuilt.

After WWII the US and the USSR began competing for world dominance. As it happened, the US was able to outspend the USSR and eventually the USSR collapsed.

In a nutshell, the USSR didn't have time to develop a market economy, or was too badly managed.

in a capitalist society, each one's role in society is determined more or less in a democratic fashion. — Fusilli Al Dente

It is not. One's role in society is determined by: who your parents were and how successful they were; where you were born; your race; your good looks or your good luck; various other arbitrary factors. Each individual has a narrow range of opportunity within which to achieve. For some the range is wider because of their parentage, race, location of birth, etc. (If you are white and born in Manhattan you have a better chance of being successful than if you are white and born on a small poor farm in Alabama. Being black and being born on a small poor farm in Alabama is just not a promising set up. You're screwed before being born.)

It's up to you, individually, to figure out how you are going to make a success of your life. You might be out-competed and end up begging on the street. What's democratic about that?

Markets can exist in a socialist economy. — Bitter Crank

I honestly want to understand your reasoning. So, Mr. Candyland does good popcorn. People love his popcorn. He sells it for a profit. He accumulates this earnings.

So, capitalism or socialism, it is pretty much the same until now.

In a capitalist model, Mr. Candyland would hire people to work for him, reproducing his recipe and allowing him to sell to more costumers and, thus, accumulate exponentially more capital.

In a socialist model, how would it work? Anyone who wanted to join his venture would do so? He can stipulate a criteria? What if one worker is a terrible cook? Or if he is lazy? How do they share the profit?

Isn't that what the capitalist Harvey Weinstein is being prosecuted for? — Bitter Crank

This, for me, is another argument pro capitalism.

See, if an agent of the market (Mr. Weinstein) is oppressing you, you can call the State to protect you.

If an agent of the State is oppressing you, you can only count on the State itself.

In capitalism, the power is divided between the market and the State, thus creating an obstacle to corruption (not a very good one, but one nonetheless).

In socialism, the power is concentrated in the State. If it is corrupt, you are in a very tough situation.

I honestly want to understand your reasoning. — Fusilli Al Dente

FAD, I'm not trying to sell you on socialism or capitalism here. I'm just trying to explain the basic theory.

Where does "profit" come from under capitalism?

Mr. Candyland owns the 'means of production': the stores, the counters, the popcorn poppers, the big copper kettles where caramel corn is made, the candy making machines, tons of popcorn, tons of sugar, tons of butter and oil, and so on. Mr. Candyland doesn't actually do any work. He hires people (his employees) to do all the work. All the stuff sitting in storage (popcorn, sugar...) has some, but not great value. What workers do is change cheap kernels, sugar, butter, salt, and oil into fairly expensive caramel corn. The raw materials become much more valuable after workers have transformed them into the delicious snack. Same goes for candy or salted popcorn. The value of the stuff in the popcorn box is worth maybe 10 times as much as the unpopped kernels in a barrel.

Profit is the difference between the raw material and finished goods, less the cost of materials, wages, and overhead.

Mr. Candyland puts the profit in a bank and enjoys his leisure time. The popcorn workers, on the other hand, barely make enough to scrape by. (Karl Marx: Value, Price and Profit)

What socialists propose is eliminating the owning class (because they are, basically, parasites). A basic idea of socialism is that the people who produce caramel corn with their blood, sweat, and tears should be the primary beneficiaries of their own labor.

Let's say Candyland existed in a socialist economy. What would be the same and different? The popcorn would still be delicious, if the recipes were followed. The workers would still have to buy raw materials -- popcorn, sugar, butter, oil, salt, and so on from other socialist suppliers. They would still make the popcorn products and sell it.

The difference is this: the workers would keep all the profit left over after all the bills were paid.

The same would go for steel mills, auto plants, clothing factories, and grocery stores. Nothing would be operated to generate profit for people who did not do any work. Those who did the work would benefit.

Labor creates all wealth, and the wealth it creates is really quite an enormous pile.


True, it is difficult to sue the State. For one thing, the State can decide that it would prefer not to be sued and the Court (part of the State) can dismiss your suit. Secondly, sovereign states are indeed very powerful.

While the states do protect individual citizens to some degree, they are especially anxious to protect the interests of large corporations (like Microsoft, Exxon, Apple, Boeing, ATT...). As Karl Marx put it, "The state is a committee to organize the affairs of large corporations (and their owners)." (paraphrase)

So, if you are a worker trying to organize a union, you will find that the state has passed laws making it quite difficult for you to complete the process of union organization. Law, in the United States, as very unfriendly to workers who want to organize for better conditions.

Corporations want to keep the cost of workers as low as possible, and the rate of profit for the owners (stockholders) as high as possible. That's why the richest 5% of people in the US have more wealth than the poorer 95%..

Huge gaps in income are not sustainable. They tend to undermine the health of society on which all depends.

I don't understand why the organizer of the labor and capital gets nothing for his ingenuity. Isn't it the guy with the grand idea who has great value. Someone must create the better mousetrap, otherwise you just have useless wood and springs.

What socialists propose is eliminating the owning class (because they are, basically, parasites). — Bitter Crank

And socialist revolutions have taken that literally, the elimination or extermination of the parasites that are called the rich.

Those who do not consume everything they earn (ie the "rich") are crucial to the whole system as they have the capability to make the needed investments.

A basic idea of socialism is that the people who produce caramel corn with their blood, sweat, and tears should be the primary beneficiaries of their own labor. — Bitter Crank

I have no quarrels with income distribution and that there grows to be a middle class and prosperity increases. Yet you don't have to have socialist system for that. Especially the disasterous idea of central planning in the whole mix is and has been so extremely detrimental.

The formerly rich should suffer no more than having to take jobs like everyone else, and of course, losing the power, luxury, and leisure they one had. "Liquidations" or "exterminations" must not be part of the plan. Expropriation of the accumulated wealth is what I, at least, have in mind. So yes, those terms should not even be thought. (As Mark Twain or Clarence Darrow supposedly said, "I've never killed anybody but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure.")

A centrally planned economy for hundreds of millions of people is probably not workable just because our capacity to plan and execute isn't all that great. What I think of in place of the capitalist market economy is a market place of organized producers and consumers negotiating the particulars of production and consumption.

We do that now, to some extent, but the process is skewed by the capitalist drive to achieve ever more profit through perpetually escalating sales. Maybe there is a residue of puritanism in me which leads me to think we should be consuming a good deal less rubbish than we do.

All this is pretty much fantasy, though. There is as much chance (at this point) of the US becoming socialist as there is of us building cities on Mars next year.

Hi, OP here. In case anybody is wondering, I'm bailing out on this post. People have (as usual) gone so far off my original quite precise (or so I think anyway) question (and are arguing amongst themselves about other things) that I can't remain involved in it! Never mind. Better luck next time I guess.