Socialism through Capitalism???

I have a lot to say about this but most of it's been said by Digit or Obliv.

What I want to know, however, is why can't we take the best elements of all systems (capitalism, socialism, anarchy, et cetera) and make one uber system that helps people but respects the rights of the individual?

What about a system featuring complete social anarchy with resource management similar to capitalism?

It seems to me that too often capitalists want to do what seems insinctually right (i.e. survival of the fittest through capitalism) and the socialists want to do what seems correct from a compasionate point of view.

The conservative says that we need to look to the past (usually a particular, selective past) to find our values and the liberal says we should do what works best despite what's happened.

Let's get a bunch of money and start a system where everyone is not only garunteed freedom but garunteed a nice big piece of the pie, after which we'll all be able to fight over the remaining pieces. If the proper restrictions are placed on businesses and organizations; campaign finance abolition or the general supression of nepotism for example, then we can make it so that everyone can have what they want but no one will have too much.

We don't have to go to any extreme or pick from just two choices, we can all have what we want as long as we put all our eggs in all the baskets.

 

Hey,

Been reading this tread and think you all must read this small essay by Einstein. I know it's old, but it's still worth reading...

Why Socialism?

by Albert Einstein

This essay was originally published in the first issue of Monthly Review (May 1949).


Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.

Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has-as is well known-been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.

But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called "the predatory phase" of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.

Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and-if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous-are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.

For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.

Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supra-national organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: "Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?"

I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?

It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas.

Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept "society" means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society-in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence-that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is "society" which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word "society."

It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished-just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human being which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.

Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society. Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.

If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly-centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time-which, looking back, seems so idyllic-is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption.

I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor-not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production-that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods-may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.

For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call "workers" all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production-although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is "free," what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists' requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the "free labor contract" for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from "pure" capitalism.

Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an "army of unemployed" almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?

Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo, I consider the foundation of this magazine to be an important public service

 

The next script I want to show you is by one of the 20. century Anarchistic thinkers, ERRICO MALATESTA. - Mind you that the original headline was: TOWARDS ANARCHISM. But everytime ERRICO MALATESTA used the word Anarchism, Anarchist. I changed it with Socialism, Socialist. - The point is that it doesn't really change anything. It still makes sense!

The bottom line of all this is Socialism through Capitalism??? don't work, never will! - And that "real" Socialism = Anarchism, or ANARCHISM = SOCIALISM!

Therefore; I as a "true" Socialist am an Anarchist!


TOWARDS SOCIALISM

By: ERRICO MALATESTA & EGOLAND

It is a general opinion that we, because we call ourselves revolutionists, expect Socialism to come with one stroke - as the immediate result of an insurrection which violently attacks all that which exists and which replaces all with institutions that are really new. And to tell the truth this idea is not lacking among some comrades who also conceive the revolution in such a manner.

This prejudice explains why so many honest opponents believe Socialism a thing impossible; and it also explains why some comrades, disgusted with the present moral condition of the people and seeing that Socialism cannot come about soon, waver between an extreme dogmatism which blinds them to the realities of life and an opportunism which practically makes them forget that they are Socialist and that for Socialism they should struggle.

Of course the triumph of Socialism cannot be the consequence of a miracle; it cannot come about in contradiction to the laws of development (an axiom of evolution that nothing occurs without sufficient cause), and nothing can be accomplished without adequate means.

If we should want to substitute one government for another, that is, impose our desires upon others, it would only be necessary to combine the material forces needed to resist the actual oppressors and put ourselves in their place.

But we do not want this; we want Socialism which is a society based on free and voluntary accord - a society in which no one can force his wishes on another and in which everyone can do as he pleases and together all will voluntarily contribute to the well-being of the community. But because of this Socialism will not have definitively and universally triumphed until all men will not only not want to be commanded but will not want to command; nor will Socialism have succeeded unless they will have understood the advantage of solidarity and know how to organise a plan of social life wherein there will no longer be traces of violence and imposition. And as the conscience, determination, and capacity of men continuously develop and find means of expression in the gradual modification of the new environment and in the realisation of the desires in proportion to their being formed and becoming imperious, so it is with Socialism; Socialism cannot come but little by little slowly, but surely, growing in intensity and extension.

Therefore, the subject is not whether we accomplish Socialism today, tomorrow, or within ten centuries, but that we walk towards Socialism today, tomorrow, and always.

Socialism is the abolition of exploitation and oppression of man by man, that is, the abolition of private property and government; Socialism is the destruction of misery, of superstitions, of hatred. Therefore, every blow given to the institutions of private property and to the government, every exaltation of the conscience of man, every disruption of the present conditions, every lie unmasked, every part of human activity taken away from the control of the authorities, every augmentation of the spirit of solidarity and initiative, is a step towards Socialism.

The problem lies in knowing how to choose the road that really approaches the realisation of the ideal and in not confusing the real progress with hypocritical reforms. For with the pretext of obtaining immediate ameliorations these false reforms tend to distract the masses from the struggle against authority and capitalism; they serve to paralyse their actions and make them hope that something can be attained through the kindness of the exploiters and governments. The problem lies in knowing how to use the little power we have - that we go on achieving, in the most economical way, more prestige for our goal.

There is in every country a government which, with brutal force, imposes its laws on all; it compels all to be subjected to exploitation and to maintain, whether they like it or not, the existing institutions. It forbids the minority groups to actuate their ideas, and prevents the social organisations in general from modifying themselves according to, and with, the modifications of public opinion. The normal peaceful course of evolution is arrested by violence, and thus with violence it is necessary to reopen that course. It is for this reason that we want a violent revolution today; and we shall want it always - so long as man is subject to the imposition of things contrary to his natural desires. Take away the governmental violence and ours would have no reason to exist.

We cannot as yet overthrow the prevailing government; perhaps tomorrow from the ruins of the present government we cannot prevent the arising of another similar one. But this does not hinder us, nor will it tomorrow, from resisting whatever form of authority - refusing always to submit to its laws whenever possible, and constantly using force to oppose force.

Every weakening of whatever kind of authority, each accession of liberty will be a progress towards Socialism; always it should be conquered - never asked for; always it should serve to give us greater strength in the struggle; always it should make us consider the state as an enemy with whom we should never make peace; always it should make us remember well that the decrease of the ills produced by the government consists in the decrease of its attributions and powers, and the resulting terms should be determined not by those who governed but by those were governed. By government we mean any person or group of persons in the state, country, community, or association who has the right to make lows and inflict them upon those who do not want them.

We cannot as yet abolish private property; we cannot regulate the means of production which is necessary to work freely; perhaps we shall not be able to do so in the next insurrectional movement. But this does not prevent us now, or will it in the future, from continually opposing capitalism or any other form of despotism. And each victory, however small, gained by the workers against their exploiters, each decrease of profit, every bit of wealth taken from the individual owners and put at the disposal of all, shall be a progress - a forward step towards Socialism. Always it should serve to enlarge the claims of the workers and to intensify the struggle; always it should be accepted as a victory over an enemy and not as a concession for which we should be thankful; always we should remain firm in our resolution to take with force, as soon as it will be possible, those means which the private owners, protected by the government, have stolen from the workers.

The right of force having disappeared, the means of production being placed under the management of whoever wants to produce, the result must be the fruit of a peaceful evolution.

Socialism could not be, nor would it ever be if not for these few who want it and want it only in those things they can accomplish without the co-operation of the non-socialiste. This does not necessarily mean that the ideal of Socialism will make little or no progress, for little by little its ideas will extend to more men and more things until it will have embraced all mankind and all life's manifestations.

Having overthrown the government and all the existing dangerous institutions which with force it defends, having conquered complete freedom for all and with it the means of regulating labour without which liberty would be a lie, and while we are struggling to arrive at this point, we do not intend to destroy those things which we little by little will reconstruct.

For example, there functions in the present society the service- of supplying food. This is being done badly, chaotically, with great waste of energy and material and with capitalist interests in view; but after all, one way or another we must eat. It would be absurd to want to disorganise the system of producing and distributing food unless we could substitute for it something better and more just.

There exists a postal service. We have thousands of criticisms to make, but in the meantime we use it to send our letters, and shall continue to use it, suffering all its faults, until we shall be able to correct or replace it.

There are schools, but how badly they function. But because of this we do not allow our children to remain in ignorance - refusing their learning to read and write.

 

Sorry I've been out of the conversation as of late, lightning hit my modem again, 2nd time in 2 months. So I got my replacement today, and I'll rejoin later tonight.

 

damn what long posts.

yes yes yes, i've been known to post a few of those myself, but i didn't realize they took souch an *effort* to read all through when baked

very good articles btw. however i don't see pure socialism happening in the immidiate or far fetched future. it's more of a pipe dream than anything else. a very good one at that, but certain aspects of human nature will not be overcome unless we do a quantum leap in intellectual evolution.

thus competition and, well, greed, is still a major factor in human innovation. this is not least of all exemplefied in the technological advances done during war-times. capitalism is a state of perpetual competition. and progress. but as i've said earlier. capitalism needs to be controlled. and those control mechanisms are socialist in nature (spreading the profit), but not in direct opposition to capitalism.

 

Is it just me, or does anyone else believe that almost 100 years of comparing socialist systems to capitalist systems in the REAL WORLD counts for just a little bit more than all of the idealist dogma man could ever write. I really do believe in the betterment of mankind, but it kinda seems obvious to me that the proven path is through some kind of capitalist based economic system for all of the reasons I've stated in previous posts.

No doubt Einstein was one smart mofo...at least with physics. Thorseitn Veblen was also one of my favorite little known 19th century economists. Little know & less cared about fact, Thorstein developed the theory of "competitive conspicuous consumption", an economic precursor to "keeping up with the Joneses". However, Einstein did not live long enough to see the proof of his social/economic theories. Of all people, Einstein would recognize the value of emperical proof over theory! Therefore, if Albert were alive today, he'd be a Capitalist!

This is a great thread, but its kinda like going over old sporting events, like the Tour de France, and saying that someone other than Greg LeMond & the US Postal Service team has been a better bike racer in the Tour for the past 5 years! There are other great riders out there, but the results are already a proven fact. It's history, this parrot is dead, it's wouldn't go whoosh if you put 100,000 volts through it, this is an ex-parrot!

 

and besides there is a hellufalot difference beetween democratic liberal socialism (never practiced or tried) and top-down conservative communist dictatorships (been tried several times)

 

Thank you Zylark, you put the words right in my mouth . But he is really right, the point is that is human nature will not allow a system like this to happen. The majority of all the world members (97% I'd say) want the life a movie star (from an economical standpoint) and the best system for this kind of advancement is through competition and the capitalist system. I've mentioned this SEVERAL times: By letting a system such as this happen, you defeat the general principal of natural selection. I hate to say this, but people HAVE to die through starvation, disease, and the whatnot. Overpopulation is a real problem, and if you use the Taoist Outlook on life, Nature would allow it.

Example: A forest is filled with 2 primary animals... rabbits and wolves. If there is an abudance of rabbits, the wovles will eat the excess, and keep the population down. Now if lets say the wolves migrate away, then the rabbit population explodes, and eats all vegetation, the environment will NOT be able to support the rabbits. Therefore the population will end up dying of stavation, and only the strongest will survive. The levels may be low, but the rabbits will reproduce, and when the wolves return, harmony is recreated.

Now, humans are basically intelligent animals, with a competive system, its more in tune to nature. With a system that doesn't promote competition, it does not produce motivation, and more cases of living off the state resume due to the metality of everything is taken care of.

All right everybody still with me? Okay, my point to you Digit, and you Oblivot is that Sociolism works in THEORY like I said, after I studied it, it made great sense to me, but then I studied Taoism, and its basic phliosophy came in to trump sociolism. The other main thing to destory any consevialble idea of sociolism is that humans have the mentality of "every man/woman for him\herself". If you don't believe me, look at the LA riots, nothing but stealing and looting by the masses in the area that it happened. It doesn't matter if your idea of a Utopia, wheater it be Capitalism, Sociolism, Communism, Feudalism, Total Democracy, Anarchy, the basic human metality for its own betterment comes out during a breakdown in social fabric. Also, with the exception of TOTAL democracy, there must be a central ruler, and with everycase of sociolism that has tried to come through, you see the results of that: USSR, Cuba, Nazi Germany, China, North Korea etc. I know there are key differences in the kinds of sociolism, but as you can see, history repeats itself.


WHEW, okay got that out. Anybody want to quit this debate, and play Twister or something

 

i agree that a certain amount of competition is needed. but this competition should be on an individual level. not beetween the continents as today. it is just plain wrong too keep on screwing africa and south america over, just 'coz we here in the capitalist well-off north like our coffee cheap or whatnot.

in a moderated socialist-capitalist society nobody would have to die due to systemic unfairness that is the defacto situation today. we *need* to repell all debt by the third world and think through our international monetary system with a bit of socialism in our backheads.

 

Africa is a lost cause in my opinion. It was tribalism with spears and land disputes about 80 years ago. Today its tribalism with AKMs, and land disputes. Its the same wars just in a modern sense. Not to mention how AIDS is literally destroying the continent. Too much war, and disease, with bloody revolutions & coups every year or so. Africa will remain a 4th world continent, and will never change no matter what economic system changes the world goes through.

 

i won't rehash my views on socialism/capitalism, that is covered previously in this thread. i will however correct a mistake in josh's latest post regarding nazism

nazism have absolutely nothing to do with socialism. if you read your history, you'll know that nazi-germany prime enemy was socialism / communism. this is a common trait among all fascist ideologies. and nazism is fascist. fascism is simply put the abandonment of civil liberties in favour of monopolistic capitalism. big corporations are given free reins and dictate all aspects of the ecenomy whilst the government meddle with infrastructure, disciplin, military and police to suit the corporations needs.

socialism on the other hand wishes to put major corporations under (if not direct, at least indirect) government rule to limit their undemocratic economic power.

 

easy now digit. inhale, good. hold it, hold it, exhale. phew, good eh?