this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
198 points (86.4% liked)
Asklemmy
43863 readers
1387 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You seem to know what you are talking about. Can you ELI5 the difference between communism and sosialism, in the shortest possible words?
Okay, first, to lay some groundwork, there have been many modes of production throughout history
first, there was hunter/gatherer societies, then feudalism, then capitalism
Then we have theories as to what could come next, according to the marxist viewpoint, the next thing will be socialism, and then after that, communism.
So, communism is a post-socialist ideology, the only requirement for it to be socialism is that instead of a bourgeois class and a worker class, they will become unified (doesn't matter how for the purposes of explaining this, but usually through violent revolution)
So, a socialist place would have the workers self-manage, people who work in a place would also have democratic control over that place in some way.
After that happens, for various reasons outside of the scope of an eli5, communism comes, communism is a post-socialist society in which the workers own the means of production (hence the socialist prerequisite), currency has been abolished, the state has been abolished (but not government, these are two distinct entities in socialist thought), and there are no class divisions whatsoever.
Part of the problems with discussions about these topics is that communist philosophers of old used terms in very different ways than the colloquial ways we use them today. I can expand upon this if you have any followup questions!
In the spirit of knowledge, I've tried to understand them by reading some sources but I never could get around it. It's like me, a non-physicist, trying to understand quantum theory and theory of relativity. Anyway, your explanation is good enough for me to be able to different between the two terms. Thanks.
No problem, feel free to PM or message on matrix if you want any elaboration or have any questions!
Just Google it u lazy little shit
Google is extremely insufficient for this due to the insane level of propaganda on BOTH sides of the issue. The only way to get this information is to read theory from the actual philosophers, IMHO, and that's asking a lot.
And that's not even getting into the terminology you have to learn just to understand the philosophers.
For example: most people are under the impression that private property is things that normal people own... but that's not even a little bit what marx means when he says abolish private property, you'll note, that would be insane.
So what does he mean by "private property" if he's not talking about the things normal people own?
Private property used by marxist philosophers refers to property that generates capital. An example would be a factory.
When marx said abolish private property, what he was really saying is, make it so that factories are owned by the people who work in them, rather than by some rando who has nothing to do with working in them. He was not saying that you shouldn't have the right to own a toothbrush.
Your toothbrush, according to marx, would be PERSONAL property.
So, folowing your theory, if ... I have a coat - it's "PERSONAL" property; I wash my coat myself - it's still "PERSONAL"; I rent my coat - it now becomes "PRIVATE" property; I ask someone to clean my coat for money - it's "PRIVATE" property (remember I'm still renting it); Somebody wears my coat, whilst gathers mushrooms (uses my coat in process of making value) to sell them latter - it (the coat) is "PRIVATE" property;
Questions:
Why should we abolish my coat? Wheres logic in that? And how, at the same time, does it magicaly can be mine PERSONAL, mine PRIVATE, and (in sugested future) a collectives property?
I mown someones lawn and they clean my coat (barter exchange) - my coat is PERSONAL or PRIVATE? How does that differ if money involved?
Now change the "coat" into the "factory" (a "garage", a "hammer", a "boat"), what's the diference?
Nobody gives a fuck about your coat, do you honestly think that's the problem marxists have with private property? that someone might... rent out their coat? that's not the kind of thing we're trying to solve here, it's also something literally nobody does in the real world.
If you worked in a coat factory, and you make 100 coats a day, how much should you be paid for that? I believe profit is the stolen value of labor, so, the worker should make the value of 100 coats if they make 100 coats, that's the injustice we're trying to solve.
I'd say that's personal, if you're paying them to clean your coat, i'd say they have a coat cleaning business and the coat cloaners should own that business... which it sounds like in this example they already do, so, nothing needs to change.
Whether you're one of the workers or not changes. If it's a coat factory, you just own the factory, and make money off the stolen labor value, while contributing nothing. In your examples, you actually are contributing, which makes you a worker, and someone who should get the full value of your labor.
Not OP and not as educated in leftist theory, but the difference is nobody works inside the coat to produce that value. The purpose of that bit is to ensure one cannot profit from another's labour by virtue of one owning the means of production, or at least that's how I've always understood it.
Oh, but what if they work in my coat, in my barn, gather my mushrooms for a salary? He (worker/labourer) profits from my coat (it warms him, he saves expences not using his own), he doesn't have to face elements and has an enviroment and a way of (having a job) earning in my barn, and his coleague sells my mushrooms gathered by team, to convert it into the money.
So the worker profits from me. Profits from my labour put into the earnign of the coat, buying it, cleaning it, me saving (debting) and building a barn, aranging a mashrooms farm, finding people, taking risks, etc ... Are you (socialists/comunists) talking about abolishing "worker/labourer" now, cause he profits from capitalist farmer? :)
P.S. in scenario above, we would all earn our part, but if somebody wants to own any part more – of gear, buildings, organization, responsibility, risks – just buy shares, or vote by feet and build your own bussines.
This is a terrible gotcha and shows that you didn't even read the theory before you thought you could debunk it.
A socialist system would mean that the worker is getting the full value of their labor... that includes your imaginary CEO, because that person is acting as a worker in much of your examples.
Once you recognize that you're arbitrarily assigning this person as a non-worker, you realize the problem with your gotcha...
You're basically saying "what if the ceo works really hard, then should he still get nothing?" the thing we're trying to abolish is the people who DON'T work, the CEO's who sit on their asses and collect would be the ones losing out in this system, same with landlords. The people actually working the land should own it. "passive" income is what socialists seek to abolish, because we actually value labor.
P.S. answering to your: "This is a terrible gotcha and shows that you didn't even read the theory before you thought you could debunk it." Let's not fall so low as to the personal attacks ;) or conclusions about a person. You don't know what I have red and what not, to judge. A question is a question – it can be anounced even by a parrot. If you are to philosophize and a question is of current topic, and you are not a parrot yourself, then it should not be a problem to discuss it with logic and arguments by both sides. You see ;) I can do it also, well of course unless you are a parrot :)))
It's not really a personal attack, it's a statement of fact, you're clearly approaching this assuming it's stupid even though you obviously haven't read the material needed to argue against it, if you had you wouldn't be making the arguments you are.
Your arguments aren't logical, they're being petty with definitions, you're squabbling about things that don't matter to the socialist argument and can be answered hundreds of ways by the different philosophers, and if you had read any of the material you would understand why your arguments are meaningless.
:) beeing not a young person, beeing born in one of the soviet block countries (forced in to that block by force), having to learn commies litterature almost from zero grade and during the whole education system, later having finished bussines and economy studies in capitalism, now having a small IT bussiness, even your nickname (as it sounds) for me is behind the borderline of my tolerance. ;) Yet, I'm not trying to call you someone or even atack your beliefs by presumptions. The questions were just the questions, simply out of interest of how would someone who presents himself (socialist or comunist) would answer them. P.S. your comment (before this one) where you replyed my question by question, was quite good as for a discusion, even if you fall time to time into some magic asumptions about person behind questions. Anyway, I thank you for you effort when you answered the questions and presented your point of view on the subject. :)))
The Soviet block countries were extremely anti-socialist. They were lying and pretending to be socialist to acquire power, they were actually authoritarian hellholes that never implemented even one socialist policy. I have no doubt that being raised there is why you aren't familiar with the theory.
If you need evidence of this, look at how they treated Yugoslavia when they implemented workplace democracy, an actually socialist policy. Lenin himself even called it "state capitalism"
Well we are getting away from the topic of "profit from capital", but I have to mention it – Yugoslavia was a shithole too although somewhat a bit less than sssr. But lets not expand here both.
Yes, of course, but what can you expect from a country that is hated by BOTH of the worlds superpowers.
What is that "the full value" that worker should get? If for example I have worked my ass, building five garages, and now i rent four of them for someone doing busines in there with their own hammer and my multitool – what is the full value that the renter/worker should get? What is the full value if someone who rents my garage, bought his own tools, created workplace, found someone happy to make stools whole day for him and now only sells them? What is the full value if someone (garage owner, or renter with busines) decided, that 10 years of working (their ass) hard is enought and now they will live a bit slower, maybe even employing profesional manager to do their job. Where is the line?
I understand giving everybody as much equal oportunities as possible, enabling everybody equaly as much as possible – but that does not magicaly make them all work equaly hard, equaly skilled, equaly balance their work/life/family/free time, does not magicaly eaqualy balance them all taking same risks, responsibilities.
What's fair to take, to share with less efective (or happy) ones – that is the question? Should we make it harder for the faster ones, working harder ones, healthier ones?
How the fck not alowing to gain from someones earned capital or someones labour (by delegation of some tasks) will create equal oportunities? Whats wrong in and with curent democratic/capitalistic (semi social share and care policies having) system of western countries? System curently alowing workers to own shares and voting with their hands (as coowners) in business or voting by their feet and going to other busineses to work and own them (or building them themselves). Go and do?
Where the line is is debated among socialist all the time, and where you fall on that partially determines the type of socialist you are. Please read theory before assuming you have this incredible gotcha that nobody ever thought of.
The answer is quite simple, the full value is determined by the amount of profit they generate through their labor.
Who cares? They're getting the full value of their labor, even if that full value is less, i think you imagine socialists believe in absolute equality for some insane reason, this is why i'm saying you haven't read the material.
This question doesn't make sense when you factor in the things I just said, so, i'm just going to ignore it.
Nothing is wrong with some of those parts of it, in fact, socialists aren't exactly anti-capitalist, they just recognize it's a temporary thing. The problem with people who generate money from capital is that they don't work, they make money from their money, and a class of people who simply makes money from their money are leeches on society, an unnecessary middleman between the people who actually do work, and the money they produce.
Furthermore, if you're wondering why people would still have opportunities, the answer is that a union of workers can still form a business, this not only actually dramatically reduces risk, but also is much more doable when people actually get paid the full value of their labor rather than a tiny percentage.
Please read some theory before you try online gotchas, or at least ask questions instead of being a butthole and assuming you know better. You're not using facts and logic to argue with me, you're using ignorance and guessing about what we believe.
You're kinda arguing with somebody who has actually bothered to read the material we're talking about, and assuming you can outwit it without even reading it, and it's a little like telling a quantum physicist they're wrong because quantum physics doesn't make any sense, it's painful to read. This is a set of philosophies with hundreds of years of history, they've thought of all the things you've said many times.
The man who bakes a loaf of bread in order to buy a slice is not truly free.
So you sugest that somebody living of money/ownership is a leach by definition. But what about someone who (lets simplify things, lets say he just) saved – money (by spending less), or time and resources (for example by efective barter exchange) and now has got plenty of it. By spending less now he got a bigger surpluss, you may even call it a profit comming from diferent (better or worse) priorities management of his. How's that bad? Why these coul'd not be invested? Work as a capital? Why if he can buy labour or aditional value on market for less he shouldn't do it? Why if somebody sells something at at a value he by himself doesn't appreciate – somebody else has to be blamed, taxed more? Aren't we trying to pray on more successful ones, and if it is so, then how is that diferent of them trying to pray on less risk taking ones, less rich ones?
P.S. I'm not suposing to abolish taxes or not keeping up available some social minimum (basic) services which are enabling people, giving them more oportunities to start. At the same time, I do not think we have to punish someone who is more efective or can make money out of the money, resources out of resources, or time out of his more efectively managed time. Someone who could exchange it into others resources or time, and even someone who automated this (or these proceses) by using his (or bought) mind on how to make it all work seamingly "without a further work" of his. I mean – invested.
It's not bad. Nobody cares about this, I don't know why you assume socialists do.
Because then he'd be generating money with money, which is not productivity, and that is leeching off of other peoples work.
This doesn't make sense, I don't even know what you're trying to say.
No, we're trying to get rid of people who don't produce value, and have the most money while not doing anything.
This has nothing to do with socialism beyond that this is a popular thing for socialists, it is not socialist policy to do that.
If they make money off of having money, then they aren't doing anything, if they're helping manage people, that's labor that should be rewarded, non-productive labor is what we seek to extinguish, not productive labor.
I honestly can barely read what you're writing, please proofread, that made very little sense to me, and is almost impossible to read.
// Well, forgive, if my (on a go) english is a bit less comprehensive for a native speaker than for the euringlish speaking one :) Lemmy android client does not have a proofreader, but it's not a problem for me to rephrase then you point at problemic to comprehend sections.
I ment, if labourer is not hapy about (does not like) the compensation value he gets for his job, but still agrees to sell it for that value – whom we are to blame him or someone with capital for paying him less? But if I corectly understood you, that is not a problem in your socialism understanding (or interpretation), right?
It is believed this will be mostly eliminated by workers receiving the full value of their labor. It's impossible to offer a job where you don't pay the full value if everybody else offers the full value, due to simple competition.
Isn't that imaginary "full value" somewhere far far above or below – lets call it, "momentum optimum value"?
As I see it: too much concurency in place (lets say geographycaly) and workers will fight between themselves for work, vages will go down. Too few specialists and the value of them goes up for the team (company, organization, comunity, town, etc..) Such specialist, for several hours and his half day trip, can be overpayed so much, that 10 full time workers (spending their time creating value, puting effort) working 8 hours/day for a whole week would not get in total. Are socialist gonna to pay them all equal or maybe even more for the second ones, reasoning that technicaly they been putting more effort and time? Or are we just playing with words and an abstraction "full value" means nothing else than "how much that is worth as part of a product". But if so, then your before mentioned, hipotetycaly 'nothing doing' CEO or Owner (living from investment of capital), alsow did their value part. First one, lets say, by making a 5 minutes call (or just playing a tenis with right client) which granted a begining of 6 milion contract arangements. Second one (I'll take an extreme), by deciding to give his money to broker or banker for them to invest in some sucsessfull busines, or by spending it on to be able to do nothing, instead of keeping it under his pilow. Oh and by spending it he also somewhat does create a value – he buys cofee for 20$ instead of 2$, creating value oportunity for the restaurant and it's labourers and further down the chain.
How do we measure that "full value" in your understanting of (post capitalism) socialism? Is it by labour hours, labour effort, or labour effect?
What about cases, then wisely doing nothing will create value too? :) E.g. not shipping right away, but delaying/waiting for more orders to combine, will optimise logistics and so it will create value.
From a socialist perspective, the concept of workers receiving the full value of their labor is about creating a fair and equitable economic system that minimizes exploitation and inequality. Let's address your points one by one:
Concurrent Workers and Wage Competition:
Specialists and High Wages:
CEOs and Owners:
Measuring "Full Value":
Value in Doing Nothing:
In summary, the socialist ideal of workers receiving the full value of their labor is rooted in principles of fairness, cooperation, and democratic decision-making. It seeks to create an economic system where wealth and value are distributed more equitably, and where decisions about compensation and resource allocation are made with the well-being of all members of society in mind.
To understand this, read about the labour theory of value.
Imaginary value of own labour and effort versus exchange value in the eyes of other market players. Your afore mentioned "labour theory of value" apprises the first but ignores the second (both as a component of some global-whole value essence, or as a standalone thing). :)
Are you sugesting (by refering to that theory) that "fair value for a labourer to get is" only the first? What about other questions I've rised?
Could you just comment instead of refering "read the book" and leave guesing of what do you exactly think or imply as answers? I have my opinions, I have my questions – now I'm fishing for others – looking for discusion, opinions, questions (why would I comment otherwise). You are able to keep a discussion, if you know the topic, arn't you? I mean without using an avoidance tool in style of "go read a bible or you have to have a belief and then you'll understand". Just talk, explain in your own words as you inderstand it, if you understand it, and if you have an opinion on questions asked at all.
Not gonna discuss anything w you because of the tone you've been using with me and others in this comment chain. You wanna learn, be nice or read about it yourself. Have a good day.
// You imagine the tone, the signs you think you see are just a consequence of translation.
Why even start a comment in your case, if you position right from the begining is "I don't want to, or I can't explain" e.g. eli5 own point of view?