Questions For Democratic/Libertarian Socialists

[Roycarn]

According to Wikipedia, democratic socialism "is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production." It is NOT the same as social democrac which accepts capitalism and private ownership of the means of production but with regulation by the government.

It's fairly common among Americans to misunderstand what they're talking about when they talk about "socialism." Socialism answers the question of who owns the means of production. If it's in private hands, its capitalism. If not, it's socialism.

There is also libertarian socialism (not actually an oxymoron) that opposes the very existence of the state as a type of illegitimate power and authority. LibSocs (shorthand for libertarian socialists) believe that capitalism with its hierarchical power structure must be dismantled to achieve a truly free society. In place of governments and private enterprise, LibSocs advocate worker run cooperatives to provide goods and services for the benefit of their workers.

As such, there are several questions I have for both types of socialists:

1. If I bought a widget machine using money I earned from some productive activity, whether it be through a wage or share of profits from a worker cooperative, why shouldn't I be allowed to own the machine to make widgets assuming I don't hire anyone else?

2. If I do hire someone else, how exactly is "wage slavery" an argument against me hiring workers to run the factory without owning it? If I paid my workers an average of $70 an hour, how exactly are they slaves who are "forced" into working to avoid starvation when they could simply take another job with better benefits if I chose to short change them by significantly lower wages? And what stops workers from obtaining their own capital?


3. Worker and consumer cooperatives actually fairly common. In 2015, there were about $500 billion in revenue from coops nationwide that employed a total of 2 million workers. This shows that the model is viable even in a capitalist system. If these "liberations" from wage slavery can coexist next to capitalist ownership of the means of production, why should private ownership of the means of production be eliminated in order to achieve the goals of freedom and independence of workers?

I look forward to your responses and comments below.

 

[MrPeanut]

I'm more of a social democrat, but I think it's silly to use strict definitions like this. There is a lot of crossover of political identities from country to country, but an American conservative will never be the same as an English conservative. In fact, an American conservative would likely call an English conservative a socialist. Democratic socialism in America is social democracy everywhere else. I'm going to answer question 2 because I don't see any issue with 1 or 3. One of the basic arguments against capitalism is that workers are never fully compensated for their own labor. If you pay them $70 an hour it would only make sense if they produce >$70 an hour with their labor. It wouldn't be a sustainable business if there was no profit. The argument that people can simply move from job to job has always been strange to me. I always imagine that the people who make that argument must live in an incredible bubble in the United States. I can show you full towns that have one business that pays over minimum wage. There is nowhere for them to go.

 

[ttwtt78640]

According to Wikipedia, democratic socialism "is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production." It is NOT the same as social democrac which accepts capitalism and private ownership of the means of production but with regulation by the government.

It's fairly common among Americans to misunderstand what they're talking about when they talk about "socialism." Socialism answers the question of who owns the means of production. If it's in private hands, its capitalism. If not, it's socialism.

There is also libertarian socialism (not actually an oxymoron) that opposes the very existence of the state as a type of illegitimate power and authority. LibSocs (shorthand for libertarian socialists) believe that capitalism with its hierarchical power structure must be dismantled to achieve a truly free society. In place of governments and private enterprise, LibSocs advocate worker run cooperatives to provide goods and services for the benefit of their workers.

As such, there are several questions I have for both types of socialists:

1. If I bought a widget machine using money I earned from some productive activity, whether it be through a wage or share of profits from a worker cooperative, why shouldn't I be allowed to own the machine to make widgets assuming I don't hire anyone else?

2. If I do hire someone else, how exactly is "wage slavery" an argument against me hiring workers to run the factory without owning it? If I paid my workers an average of $70 an hour, how exactly are they slaves who are "forced" into working to avoid starvation when they could simply take another job with better benefits if I chose to short change them by significantly lower wages? And what stops workers from obtaining their own capital?


3. Worker and consumer cooperatives actually fairly common. In 2015, there were about $500 billion in revenue from coops nationwide that employed a total of 2 million workers. This shows that the model is viable even in a capitalist system. If these "liberations" from wage slavery can coexist next to capitalist ownership of the means of production, why should private ownership of the means of production be eliminated in order to achieve the goals of freedom and independence of workers?

I look forward to your responses and comments below.

1) That depends on who you sell your widgets to. If you sell widgets to the government then you must pay any workers "scale" wages per the Davis-Bacon Act.

2) That depends on how much you are making for each hour of the employee's work. Obviously you are going to make more than you are paying "the help" or you would not be in business.

3) Can the workers of such a coop "cash out" and receive their "fair share" of the coop's assets? Most such profit/revenue sharing schemes are simply giving workers a share of the net profit/revenue and not any stake in the underlying assets (means of production).

 

[bongsaway]

It's words and until we put meaning behind those words what's the difference what we call it? Socialism, capitalism, communism, who cares, they are words and do not fit all peoples' thinking.

Our capitalist system and our tax system are set up for the wealthy and corporations, not the average 'wage slave'. If it were so easy for people to pick up and just move on to another job for better pay and benefits they would, those don't exist for the average 'wage slave'. Times are changing, jobs are changing. America used to be THE manufacturing power of the world. You could come out of high school and work for GM for thirty years or so and retire comfortably. Those days are gone and unless you have a profession you're basically out of luck today, get a job at McDonalds. Call it what you wish but some kind of socialist democracy or democratic socialism a combination of private ownership but where workers are treated decently and the 'owner' is not the only one being comfortable. Things need to change.

 

[pinqy]

It's words and until we put meaning behind those words what's the difference what we call it? Socialism, capitalism, communism, who cares, they are words and do not fit all peoples' thinking.
.

Words carry meanings. And concepts used in Economics and Political Science are strictly and narrowly defined for purposes of study and comparison. For example, what in this thread is called “Libertarian Socialism” is more commonly called Syndicalism in Economics.

So yes it does matter what you call things so that people can understand the meaning. Unfortunately, “socialism” has become s very misused term.

 

[pinqy]

According to Wikipedia, democratic socialism "is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production." It is NOT the same as social democrac which accepts capitalism and private ownership of the means of production but with regulation by the government.

It's fairly common among Americans to misunderstand what they're talking about when they talk about "socialism." Socialism answers the question of who owns the means of production. If it's in private hands, its capitalism. If not, it's socialism.

There is also libertarian socialism (not actually an oxymoron) that opposes the very existence of the state as a type of illegitimate power and authority. LibSocs (shorthand for libertarian socialists) believe that capitalism with its hierarchical power structure must be dismantled to achieve a truly free society. In place of governments and private enterprise, LibSocs advocate worker run cooperatives to provide goods and services for the benefit of their workers.

As such, there are several questions I have for both types of socialists:

1. If I bought a widget machine using money I earned from some productive activity, whether it be through a wage or share of profits from a worker cooperative, why shouldn't I be allowed to own the machine to make widgets assuming I don't hire anyone else?

2. If I do hire someone else, how exactly is "wage slavery" an argument against me hiring workers to run the factory without owning it? If I paid my workers an average of $70 an hour, how exactly are they slaves who are "forced" into working to avoid starvation when they could simply take another job with better benefits if I chose to short change them by significantly lower wages? And what stops workers from obtaining their own capital?


3. Worker and consumer cooperatives actually fairly common. In 2015, there were about $500 billion in revenue from coops nationwide that employed a total of 2 million workers. This shows that the model is viable even in a capitalist system. If these "liberations" from wage slavery can coexist next to capitalist ownership of the means of production, why should private ownership of the means of production be eliminated in order to achieve the goals of freedom and independence of workers?

I look forward to your responses and comments below.

I’ve never heard of “Libertarian Socialism,” but what you’re describing seems to be Syndicalism or Anarcho-Syndicalism.

 

[Roycarn]

I'm more of a social democrat, but I think it's silly to use strict definitions like this. There is a lot of crossover of political identities from country to country, but an American conservative will never be the same as an English conservative. In fact, an American conservative would likely call an English conservative a socialist. Democratic socialism in America is social democracy everywhere else. I'm going to answer question 2 because I don't see any issue with 1 or 3. One of the basic arguments against capitalism is that workers are never fully compensated for their own labor. If you pay them $70 an hour it would only make sense if they produce >$70 an hour with their labor. It wouldn't be a sustainable business if there was no profit. The argument that people can simply move from job to job has always been strange to me. I always imagine that the people who make that argument must live in an incredible bubble in the United States. I can show you full towns that have one business that pays over minimum wage. There is nowhere for them to go.

There are two main arguments in favor of private profit. The first is that profit compensates the owner for taking a risk or risks in business. Whether they fail, lose money, or go bankrupt is very much a possibility whereas a wage worker would simply lose his job. Second, profits through the price mechanism coordinate economic activity by giving entrepreneurs to enter markets that are highly profitable, thus driving down excess profits in the industry.

 

[bongsaway]

Words carry meanings. And concepts used in Economics and Political Science are strictly and narrowly defined for purposes of study and comparison. For example, what in this thread is called “Libertarian Socialism” is more commonly called Syndicalism in Economics.

So yes it does matter what you call things so that people can understand the meaning. Unfortunately, “socialism” has become s very misused term.

I see the point you are trying to make in higher education mumbo jumbo where definitations matter. Walk up to the average person on the street and ask them what syndicalism in economics is and tell me what the look on their face tells you. I'm talking terms like the average person can understand, like socialism. It's tossed around on here like a hand grenade on fire, what's it mean? Who knows but I know it's bad, see venezuela for your example. Not norway, sweden and a host of other countries not ruled by a military dictator and it works fine no matter what you want to call it. Anyway it's not the words, it's the idea and sadly way to many folks in america seem to resist a change because of their 'beliefs' not facts.

 

[Roycarn]

I see the point you are trying to make in higher education mumbo jumbo where definitations matter. Walk up to the average person on the street and ask them what syndicalism in economics is and tell me what the look on their face tells you. I'm talking terms like the average person can understand, like socialism. It's tossed around on here like a hand grenade on fire, what's it mean? Who knows but I know it's bad, see venezuela for your example. Not norway, sweden and a host of other countries not ruled by a military dictator and it works fine no matter what you want to call it. Anyway it's not the words, it's the idea and sadly way to many folks in america seem to resist a change because of their 'beliefs' not facts.

In that case, could you answer the questions I've posed above? Or are you really just a social democrat seeking to reform capitalism and not end it?

 

[bongsaway]

In that case, could you answer the questions I've posed above? Or are you really just a social democrat seeking to reform capitalism and not end it?

I honestly am not concerned about the titles. I would love to reform our capitalistic society and change it into the kind of society socialistic leaning societies that are successful tend to be. There are more than a few that work and don't impose socialism on people to the extent most of the right would have one believe. It's a combination of both so call it what you wish. I do know this, I'm heading towards seventy, technology has greatly improved, as a society we are not keeping pace. More and more and more are falling out of mainstream society into the lower end of society and all because of money and the inequality of a purely capitalistic society.

 

[Roycarn]

I honestly am not concerned about the titles. I would love to reform our capitalistic society and change it into the kind of society socialistic leaning societies that are successful tend to be. There are more than a few that work and don't impose socialism on people to the extent most of the right would have one believe. It's a combination of both so call it what you wish. I do know this, I'm heading towards seventy, technology has greatly improved, as a society we are not keeping pace. More and more and more are falling out of mainstream society into the lower end of society and all because of money and the inequality of a purely capitalistic society.

Yeah, it seems when prodded most people would identify as social democrats and not democratic socialists. I find libsocs easier to find common ground with than "regular" socialists as they too oppose overreaching government power in favor of voluntary institutions.