As Paul Samuelson indicated, capitalist economies are mixed socialist/capitalist economies and have been for a long time. Even the US is a very mixed economy. Really since Wall Street and GM and Chrysler are insured by the federal government, the banking system and big industry are socialized. The fig leaf of paying back the bailouts doesn't hide the fact that People remain sureties of the too-big-to-fails in any failings in the future. Objectively, the US banks have been socialized whatever name they put on it.
1Like · · Unfollow Post · Share · Promote
Andy Taylor, Arthur Bowman Jr., James Heartfield and 4 others like this.
Charles Brown There is a long history of government bailout of corporations (
(History of U.S. Gov't Bailouts
http://www.propublica.org/special/government-bailouts
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_big_to_fail)
History of U.S. Gov’t Bailouts
www.propublica.org
The circles below represent the relative size of each U.S. government
bailout of...See More
September 21 at 10:16am · Like · Remove Preview
Justin Schwartz No, Charles. After all these years you should be more
clear on this. Public ownership and planning are not "socialist." They
can be a tool of capitalist economic management. What makes it
socialist is worker control, at the point of production, over
strategic planning, and in political power. And that capitalist
economist have not had, regardless of how much public ownership and
planning they may have involved.
September 21 at 11:28am · Like · 1
Geoffrey Jacques That's one view of what constitutes socialism, Justin
Schwartz, but that's not the only view. The problem becomes more
complicated when you consider relations between the democratic
political order and these economic decisions made by it with regard to
management, ownership, regulation, and control of "private"
enterprise. (I know there are still some who believe there is such a
thing as "bourgeois" democracy, as opposed to some other kind. Not me.
I think nobody's ever seen such. If so, show me.) Charles's view is
historically authoritative and accurate, as it illustrates exactly the
point that no Socialist of 100 years ago, of whatever school, and no
Liberal or Conservative of 1913, would have looked on our contemporary
political and economic order and recognized it as purely capitalist.
The would have seen, instead, the "mixed" economy.
September 21 at 12:20pm · Unlike · 2
Marilyn Daniels What about political intent and political content, Mr.
Jacques? Do you seriously believe we have a "mixed" economy? If you
do, you're feeling a hell of lot less oppressed than I am. Everywhere
we turn, we see the socio-political order manipulated on behalf of the
bourgeoisie. We witness it and feel it on every level, from credit
card rules all the way up to the military contractor system. We do
indeed have a "bourgeois democracy," a society set up in the interest
of a ruling class , although the democracy bit is definitely fraying.
Although it's handy to talk about "socialism for the upper class,"
it's incorrect by definition. I think Justin got right to the heart of
it.
September 21 at 4:54pm · Like
Geoffrey Jacques First of all, I wasn't talking about articles of
faith or belief. We live in a society that combines various forms of
public and private ownership, regulation, and control of economic
activity under the governance of a democratic state. To the extent
that belief plays a role, this probably has more to do with the
differing values among various sections of the population than with
anything else. That's our reality. Second, whether or not we have a
mixed economy has nothing whatsoever to do with whether one feels
oppressed. I don't doubt you when you say that everywhere you turn you
"see the socio-political order manipulated on behalf of the
bourgeoisie." I get that there are those who look at our reality and
all they see is what you've described. But a mixed economy is just
that: mixed. As for "bourgeois" democracy, I understand the views of
those who embrace the term and who argue that it offers a more fitting
critique of social reality than the more historically accurate term
"liberal" democracy. I used to use the term "bourgeois" democracy
myself, but then found it too inaccurate and intellectually confining
to account for the existing political reality.
September 21 at 6:20pm · Unlike · 2
Rama Kant Sharma Charles is digging the fundamentals in with his
hoe.In a Social stage where in Peaks of the economy are in the hands
of capitalists,the state is obviouly of -by -and for that
class,regardless of mixed economy features of low or high level.This
is the case in most developed capitalist nations of the world.But
states where in public sector predominates as in China (as was
declared in last party congress of Chinese Party),or even in
Russia,Cuba,Vietnam,the power of the contending classes becomes mixed
and unstable-and this anomaly is transitional to these times. Coming
to power of the party or parties favoring working class,by
elections,which is possible as these parties have declared
themselves,the transition to a mixed economy will depend on the
duration of the wielding of power,Yet as long as at world level
monopoly capital in alliance with imperialism and Military industrial
complex remains in predominance,any change in relationship of classes
will remain in doldrums.However people's power is becoming more
assertive with each day passing we do not know what change can dawn
next week or year or decade.What Charles perhaps is trying to
establish is that mixed economy is showing its appearance more and
more and that is a favorable development is in my opinion a
progressive feature we and the most people in world welcome.
Yesterday at 12:12am · Like
Marilyn Daniels Seriously, Geoffrey, why don't you throw out examples
of a "mixed economy" in the U.S. ? We don't even have what some called
a "modern welfare state! "Beliefs" have little or nothing to do with
this discussion.
22 hours ago · Like
Justin Schwartz Geoffrey Jaques, of course mine is only one view of
what constitutes socialism. I don't know why you think your view, and
the one Charles carelessly expresses here, that public ownership is
precise inherently socialist, is authoritative. Who's the authority
here? My view is one shared by a figure who Charles would recognize as
authoritative, Marx, whose position was that socialism is the self
emancipation of the working class (See, e.g., Address the
International Workmen's Ass'n), and that state control by itself is
not sufficient (Critique of the Gotha Program). Something isn't true
just because Marx said it, but his views have considerably weight, to
say the least, in any discussion of matters of concern to the left. If
one wished to speak this way, and I do not, you could say that Marx's
view on a topic to which he devoted considerable thought and effort,
is "authoritative.
22 hours ago via mobile · Like
Justin Schwartz But appeals to authority aside, any view on which the
US military, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, CIA, NSA,
Bureau of Prisons, the federal and state courts, the US and state
legislatures -- all publicly owned--are socialist because they are
publicly owned, is just crazy. Implausible,many way. Requiring
acceptance of the burden of proof. These are not socialist
institutions. They are instruments of capitalist class rule,
22 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1
Jim Farmelant Here is what Friedrich Engels had to say on the subject:
" I say "have to". For only when the means of production and distribution have actually outgrown the form of management by joint-stock companies, and when, therefore, the taking them over by the...See More 4. - Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (Chpt. 3) www.marxists.org If the Belgian State, for quite ordinary political and financial reasons, itself...See More 22 hours ago · Like · Remove Preview Justin Schwartz Thanks, Jim Farmelant. Engels, who is as much an "authority" on the matters as Marx, put it far better than I did. The question is the class control of the organization, not who formally holds legal title. 22 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1 Jim Farmelant Charles Brown must bow down before the authority of the great Fred. 22 hours ago · Like Justin Schwartz Not if it contradicts the authority of the Father of Peoples. (Teasing, Charles.) 21 hours ago via mobile · Like Charles Brown: Engels agrees with me on this point (smiles) James Heartfield I thought Charles' point was that the ruling classes' ideological case against socialism was undermined by their dependence on socialised production. Marx said the the joint stock company was already socialised production, though within the privatised mode of expropriation. As we can see with today's state-reliant industry, the capitalists' claim is more of a government-created rent, being long divorced from any relation to profits-on-production 21 hours ago via mobile · Unlike · 3 Jim Farmelant The problem is that Charles has been claiming that current forms of state property like the US Postal Service are socialist or forms of socialism. Engels's point, I think, was that is not the case, yet these forms of socialized production under capitalism are indicative of the obsolescent nature of capitalist relations of production, since it the case that, free market rhetoric to the contrary, the continued functioning of capitalism requires the socialization of production. 21 hours ago · Like Justin Schwartz Both James and Jim are correct. But Marx and Engels thought that public ownership and socialized production showed that capitalism was not (or no longer was) necessary, not that Microsoft is a socialist institution because it is a publicly traded corporation. 21 hours ago via mobile · Like Charles Brown to Forum, marxist-debate, a-list, pen-l, lbo-talk, bcc: me, bcc: john, bcc: sam As the late, great economist Paul Samuelson indicated, capitalist economies are mixed socialist/capitalist economies and have been for a long time. Even the US is a very mi...See More History of U.S. Gov’t Bailouts www.propublica.org The circles below represent the relative size of each U.S. government bailout of...See More 17 hours ago · Like · Remove Preview Charles Brown For a Marxist, the aim is the abolition of private property. "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. " ( Manifesto of the Communist Party). To the extent that forms of the basic means of production, such as water and sewerage systems, are publically owned, not the basis for private profit, they are substantially the same as they would be in a totally socialist system.
Your focus on government ownership as a false indication of socialism is not shared by Marx and Engels; so I'd say that you are not espousing a Marxist position below. Again in the Manifesto, Marx and Engels note some of the initial steps toward socialism :
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil
You can see by their reference to State ownership that they do consider what you call "government ownership" as part of socialism.
As far as working class interests being served by a state still dominated by the bourgeois, I think we should look at whether the means of production in question do in fact or objectively serve the interests of the 99%. In the case of many government functions, such as water and sewerage systems, roads and highways, firefighters, public lighting, public transportation, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and others, the _goods and services_ provided certainly do serve the working class, the 99%. That will not change when the working class dominates and controls the whole government and private property is totally abolished in all basic means of production. In other words, some institutions existing under a capitalist dominated state are the same as they will be come the revolution.
In other words, the working class, the "public" , does have substantial and effective of control in its interest of major parts of the means of production , which is the Marxist definition of public or non-private property. Regardless of the fact that a Mayor or City Council get most of their campaign funds from bourgeoisie, they conduct the business of a city's water and sewerage system, for example, in the material interests of the working masses of a city.
Some of socialism is just dull ole bourgeois civic infra-structure. The other point is that there is a contest within capitalism between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat over control of the State. The proletariat wins sometimes, and some of its wins are institutionalized still under capitalism.
It is important for Marxists to make this point to the American working class. We already have a significant amount of socialism. Socialism is as American as the clean water you drink and wash in everyday; as American as the roads and highways you use all the time. 17 hours ago · Like Charles Brown Yes James Heartfield more abstractly, socialism is rationalization of capitalism: Things like economies of scale in centralized or holistic planning or overcoming the anarchy of production. To the extent a capitalist state, including local state institutions such as city governments rationalize production of goods and services such as highways, roads, public transportation, water and sewerage, public lighting, bridges and the like they are organizationally socialist. The fact that people still pay taxes for them is an aspect that will have to whither away to be fully communist. Britain's healthcare system is substantially a socialist harbinger. British socialists can claim it as a socialist success even within a predominantly capitalist society. 16 hours ago · Edited · Like Charles Brown The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.
They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism.
All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.
The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property.
The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.
In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.
Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.
Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property?
But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.
To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.
Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power.
When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character. 16 hours ago · Like Charles Brown But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.//////// The labor of many government workers does not create private capital. 16 hours ago · Like Charles Brown It is important to point out that the Too-Big-To-Fail Corporations did in fact fail circa 2008. The demand the rulers on Wall Street made to Washington for a bailout was a confession that the whole financial system was insolvent. The bailout brought the Finance system back from the dead. Capitalism does not add up. After 500 years, it ends up that capitalism is bankrupt and insolvent by its own generally accepted accounting principles. In a sense, the only possible response of capitalism to its own failing is to spontaneously turn into early socialism as by nationalizing the banks, even without saying that is what is happening. By the national government "saving" them, they are nationalized. They are especially nationalized by the national government guaranteeing their solvency in the future. 16 hours ago · Like Justin Schwartz I agree with Gar, Marx, and Engels, not with Samuelson -- a very eminent and thoughtful critic of Marxist economics. You should too, Charles. Samuelson was. Keynesian, but Keynes, at least, was clear that Keynesianism was a way to save capitalism. Recall that Keynes said he'd wished he'd written Hayek's (actually pretty Keynesian but decidedly pro-capitalist The Road to Serfdom.) If Samuelson was unclear on this point, and he may have been, that was a regression from Keynes' own hard-headed clarity of mind and purpose. 15 hours ago via mobile · Like Geoffrey Jacques This is all very interesting. I'll simply chime in on a couple of points. The methods some people use in quoting Karl Marx or Friedrich Engels to support their points seem to resemble a presentist, cut and paste approach to history. I get the whole “state capitalist” argument, but there is an underlying assumption that always seems to go unsaid by those mounting such critiques, and that has to do with exactly what kind of state is under consideration during such discussions.
I'm sure Jim Farmelant doesn't mean to suggest that the Bismarkian state was identical to that of the US Republic during its 18th Presidency, but his method suggests this. Engels himself, who published the book cited during the second year of the US 19th Presidency, doesn't even suggest this.
Speaking of the state, there is a reading in the Marxist tradition that actually repudiates, with prejudice, Engels's thoughts on this question. The reading I'm talking about comes, famously, from Lenin, who rejected outright the thoughts Engels published some years after "Anti-Durhing," on the state, democracy, and power. All of this is very well known. It is also well known that Marx and the IWA had a much more nuanced view of the state and state power — with particular reference to the United States — than most 3rd and 4th International theorists ever credited.
As for the diversity of "socialisms," it's a conceit held by U.S. followers of the theorists of the 3rd and 4th Internationals (not to mention various anarchists, syndicalists, and what might be called "original intent" Marxists) that allows them to dismiss outright, and again with prejudice, the ideas and works of the 2nd International and its descendants. These Marxists treat these “other” socialists and their theories as if they don't exist at all, or at least as if they don't matter. (It’s an almost universal conceit among Socialists of all stripes to deny the legitimacy of the claims of other wings of the workers’ movement to the Socialist mantle; observers of the movement have been enjoying a running joke about this for at least 150 years.) Yet the 154 parties and organizations of the Socialist International today lead or help run governments in 53 countries and territories. I’m sure that is some multiple of the number of governments run, in whole or in part, by the ideological descendants of all wings of the 3rd and 4th Internationals combined.
Let me say it again. Charles is right. The mixed economy is real. Democracy, the democratic political order, and the democratic state all matter. Where is the mixed economy? Look around you. I get it that some people call themselves socialist yet despise social ownership and control of the means of production, transport, and exchange. They’re waiting for social ownership to show up in some form not yet invented by humans. So the forms of it that actually exist pass them by, unnoticed. I was going to point to General Motors in this regard; or to recent struggles over control and regulation of the banking sector, and to the mixed results of that struggle; or to the outrageous silence on the part of the Left at the President’s proposal to sell the mortgage broker firms that are owned by the people. These firms dominate the market. Do we really want to sell them off?
However, let us pass those examples by as topics that are too obvious. But the fact that the people have monopoly ownership of the passenger rail system in the United States? And that a good number of the people’s representatives have spent a couple of generations wrecking it and now want to sell it to the highest (or maybe to the lowest) bidder? We desperately need a social movement aimed at supporting, enhancing, and building this vital socially owned asset. My sense, though, is that there are among us too many who don’t see or value our mixed economy. They are blind to this aspect of today’s capitalism. They are blind to it because, in part, it doesn’t resemble the capitalism of Bismark’s times; and, of course, it doesn’t. So while some respond to that fact by seeing and trying to think through the significance and implications of the push-pull of the various existing forms of ownership, regulation, and control of economic activity in the democratic political order (a luxury neither Marx nor Engels ever had), others are still trying to figure out how to use 19th century tools to navigate 21st century realities. 15 hours ago · Like Rama Kant Sharma It has been an elaborate discussion on an important aspect of Socialism.I think world communist movement agrees on the following points some of us have raised here.State owned capitalism is not socialism just because ownership is in state hands.That working class the most revolutionary class ever developed need to become conscious of it leading socialist role and take over the state as harbinger of a productive and distributive system for a common social benefit.Abolition of private ownership of consumer products including housing,small farms and kitchen gardens etc.was never attempted and may not be necessary to call a social stage as socialist.But means of production of an economically mass production level will be collectively or publicaly owned .Ownership of the state by working class and its supporting masses including farmers and intellectuals will help in ensuring an irreversible transition to Socialism. Also Socialised service sectors,like banks,Schools,hospitals ,railways,transport,post offices under capitalist state,but in public sector will play a progressive role in helping to transition to socialism because of the public sector trade unions playing a role against bourgeois state system.In todays world different forms of struggles to social change some of these observations may not stand true.But the abolition of the bourgeoise as a class will be a necessary feature of world of Socialism. 12 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1