Hacker News Reader

Comment by lionhearted | Hacker News Reader

Good post, except one point - you're not a socialist. You're someone who believes in people acting individualistically and through voluntary cooperation. Hell, you sound like you've got similar politics as me. I think people should empower themselves and I'm for voluntary worker's collectives, absolutely. I think being salaried when you could go off and do a project with a team you pick is a bad choice. I'm all for people controlling their own destiny.

But that's not socialism. Socialism has a definition - it was coined and defined by Marx as an intermediate stage on the way to Communism after the proles have seized the means of production by violence. Marx postulated that after heavy social control and violence against the exploiters, all class and social barriers would melt away into paradise.

Turns out, he's wrong. People are different.

You're not a socialist as Marx defined it. If you want to redefine socialism and say you're this redefined thing, okay, sure. But it sounds to me like you're more into free action than socialism. That's a healthy place to be. Marxist-brand socialism is not a healthy place to be, or at least, everything that's remotely tried to be it has gone very wrong.

View on HN

"Socialism" was definitely not coined by Marx. Google "Robert Owen" if you're interested in pre-Marx socialism.

Indeed. If I recall correctly, Marx spends the first part of the "Communist Manifesto" speaking of forms of socialism that had existed beforehand (even if they weren't called as such).

It's for reasons you said that I'm glad the word "socialism" is being reappropriated from Marx. The world needs to be able to talk about socialist forms of society without this talk being tainted by Marxist theory and the shadow of communist history.

Maybe then I'd be able to talk about economic systems outside of small groups of smart friends, without some guy butting in about how Obama is a communist or how the bank bailouts demonstrate capitalism is broken or how Marx said [insert one of many popular misinterpretations of Marx here]. Maybe we could have intelligent discourse in the media on this subject without the risk of some Tea party douchebag accusing everyone of communism, and people believing it..

> It's for reasons you said that I'm glad the word "socialism" is being reappropriated from Marx. The world needs to be able to talk about socialist forms of society without this talk being tainted by Marxist theory and the shadow of communist history.

The irony of this, of course, is that there is no communist history. The USSR etc. were socialist states[1] (in name if not in practice.)

[1] Socialism as defined by Marx is the transition period after the revolution, before communism is achieved.

I once saw a slogan on a T-shirt that said “Labor creates all wealth”. I would suggest that if your first reaction to that slogan is anywhere in the range from “that’s an exaggeration, but yeah, it’s mostly true” to “HELL YEAH!”, then you are (should be?) a socialist.

The various flavors of socialism, from anarcho-syndicalism to Marxism to Scandinavian-style social democracy, represent different answers to the question of “OK, granted that labor creates the wealth, but in a country with one iron mine, five steel plants, and twenty steel-consuming factories, who decides how resources get distributed from the mines to the steel plants to the factories?”

The labor theory of value has an old and distinguished pedigree:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value#The_birth...

There's no socialism involved in accepting some version of this theory. Yes, most if not all socialists believe in it, but the converse is not true.

But it has no economic significance. People thought the earth was flat a long time ago, and that theory has the same amount of scientific basis.

Seriously, economics is a science and it is easy to demonstrate that a unit of labor time, like and hour worked, does not create the same amount of value.

Specifically, ignoring the power of capital, the labor theory of value would say a carpenter can create as many cars in an hour as a laborer working with a factory of robots.

The reality is, the capital to build the factory changes the value of the labor, thus disproving the labor theory of value.

the labor theory of value would say a carpenter can create as many cars in an hour as a laborer working with a factory of robots

No, it wouldn't, at all, not even kind of.

Depending on the version you took, it would either say that the "real" price of the car coming off the factory floor would be set by the value of all the labor put into producing it (including the cost of the labor of building the factory itself, all the way on back), or that the price would simply be the value of the labor it would save the purchaser.

The labor theory of value has always struck me as self-refuting--if a given good is only worth the labor used to produce it, why not conserve the labor? Profit happens if you produce something worth more than the labor you put into it. This is true whether you're producing profit for yourself (a sandwich is worth more to you than conserving the effort it would take to make the sandwich) or whether you're selling your labor to someone else, who in turn uses that labor to produce profit. (As you point out, this might produce more wealth, since manufacturing labor is more productive in a robotic factory than in a back yard.)

It may be more economically sound for socialists to make a moral argument that profit morally belongs to laborers more than it belongs to the capitalists (in the sense of "people who provide capital"). The economic argument seems to fall down.

The same reasoning refutes the moral argument as well.

If the new wealth created is the difference between the value of the inputs and the value of the outputs, then the key factors that determine whether or not wealth is created are the definition of the output, the definition of process by which the inputs are transformed into outputs, and the allocation of resources (including the assumption of risk) necessary to initiate that process. These functions are undertaken by "capitalists" rather than "laborers".

Labor is an essential input, but in your model, it is not at all responsible for the creation of wealth.

> The labor theory of value has an old and distinguished pedigree:

It's funny how you imply that the socialist concepts are neither old not distinguished.

I'm not implying any of those things. My point is that the labor theory of value is quite well established in itself, independently from socialism. E.g., Adam Smith was one of its key proponents, and his thought is rather associated with free markets and "invisible hand" capitalism.

Of course, the labor theory of value is false.

I can expend enormous amounts of energy engaging in the labor of banging pots and pans together. At the end of the day, I am left only with dented pots and pans. No wealth has been created; in fact, some total wealth may have been lost, as the value of the cutlery has been diminished by damage.

Wealth is created by the transformation of inputs - whether material or not - into an more useful set of outputs. Human labor may or may not be the means by which this transformation is accomplished. But the nature of the transformation can only be defined by human intelligence, and the evolution of technology seems to be shifting the weight of importance even further away from labor and further toward ideas.

"But I don't want to have that coffee-house argument where we spend all our time arguing definitions."

Haha, is there any other kind of argument (in politics at least)?

Wrong. Oh so wrong. Please read Marx. Violence is only necessary due to the violence from the rulers. There is no reason to take up arms against them if they do not take up arms against us, and they already do. If when the workers take the wealth that is rightfully theirs they are not attacked then there is no reason for violence.

And thanks for letting the oppressed and exploited know what is morally right for them to do.

You claim he is not a Marxist, yet if you read Capital you get this: "Socialists advocate a method of compensation based on individual merit or the amount of labour one contributes to society. They generally share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power andwealth within a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through a system ofexploitation. They argue that this creates an unequal society that fails to provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potential."

I am a Marxist. And I am not a pacifist.

The very idea of a startup is that you create something that you can sell to people - because they value it - for more than simply the value of the labor you put in. Are you against that? For an American, I'm somewhat to the left, but I think that Marxism in the 20th century has been an abject failure and have to wonder a bit about how anyone, in the face of such evidence, could still espouse such a system. Want to talk about Sweden vs Singapore vs Canada vs Hong Kong? Fine, but Cuba? USSR? No thanks.

I live in a capitalist society. I make do by working in startups. I did not say that startups adhere to socialist ideals.

All those countries you list are not Marxist. Especially not Sweden, Singapore, Canada or Hong Kong. USSR I give you from 1917 to 1920s it was but it was also under constant seige. Cuba made its own form of "socialism" after their revolution. Che grew fed up with the bureaucracy there and left.

> All those countries you list are not Marxist. Especially not Sweden, Singapore, Canada or Hong Kong.

That's right - they're prosperous and relatively free places (with Singapore a bit of an exception) that also manage to spend more or less money taking care of their citizens. They all have various problems and imperfections of different kinds, but generally fall along the continuum of "what works", whereas the USSR and Cuba, which are the closest to your ideals, are failures.

I can see how someone would be attracted to the Nordic system, or a more free-market type of individual would find things to like about, say, Hong Kong. Those countries, with their mixed systems, work in the real world. Marxism didn't and doesn't.

Meh. I haven't thought about this a lot, but I think the whole capitalism vs. socialism dichotomy is useless since the concepts carry so much historical baggage.

Coming from one of the Nordic countries, I would say that I have accepted a social contract that says I pay more in taxes than in other countries, and for those taxes I get "free" healthcare and "free" university education. The contract is that people get something at the beginning and the end of their lives and aren't screwed when they are faced with injury or illness, and pay more than they get during their working years. As someone said on on /., taxes buy me (this particular type of) civilization.

I'd keep that separate from the economic (e.g. private ownership and allocation of resources via somewhat free markets) and legal (e.g. governmental decision making based on majority and strong individual rights) aspects.

Unfortunately, most people confound these different aspects for historical reasons, so they have come to mean "good choices in those factors" and "bad choices in those factors" depending on your POV.

My point was that the Nordic system does work. It strikes certain balances, which may or may not also have negative effects as well, but generally you can say that it's a system that its people have freely chosen and are happy with. Countries that tend towards real Marxism are not really in the "functional" category so much.

Marx didn't coin 'Socialism,' though he did coin the word for a stateless society in which people work for the love of working and share things implicitly. It's 'Communism.' :)

> You're not a socialist as Marx defined it.

Exactly. There's a big difference between 'Socialism', 'socialism', and 'libertarian socialism.' He's a libertarian socialist. Marx advocated Socialism.

> Exactly. There's a big difference between 'Socialism', 'socialism', and 'libertarian socialism.' He's a libertarian socialist. Marx advocated Socialism.

Most people - like 90% of people - don't know the difference. Reginald wrote, "I don't like the idea of anyone forcing me to accept socialism" - that's good and healthy. Socialism, unfortunately, now has strong connotations of control involved. If he's for people being able to choose their own life and destiny, I think he'd be best off picking a word or phrase that says that. "Free action" is the closest I know.

Why lock 90%+ of people out of the discussion because they don't know the terminology?

Why would he invent a new term when libertarian socialism has such a history already, and is used by prominent thinkers such as Chomsky?

    Most people - like 90% of people - don't know the difference.

Upmodded. Wouldn't it be nice if a by-product of our discussion was for one or more people to say to themselves, "Hey, Socialism isn't a single monolithic thing, there are shades of grey involved. The next time someone says that re-organizing health care is Socialist, I will ask them what kind of socialism is involved?"

Unfortunately, the people who are saying things like "re-organizing health care is Socialist" are also the type of people would wouldn't care that there is a distinction that might be relevant. They have conflated socialism and communism, and there can be no reasonable types of communism.

It's a media thing:

socialism -> bad

capitalism -> good

So any kind of social behaviour is labeled socialism, whether it is a health care plan (how could universal health care ever be construed as a bad thing?) or pensions are leftwing and socialist, therefore bad.

You are asking people to pause and think, good luck with that, even here on HN where the level is way above the rest of the net as soon as politics are mentioned the various polarizing arguments get polished up and recycled as though they were somehow new.

I think it is as much a remnant of the cold war as it is a lack of information and education.

"You are asking people to pause and think, good luck with that, even here on HN where the level is way above the rest of the net as soon as politics are mentioned the various polarizing arguments get polished up and recycled as though they were somehow new."

Not to mention what happens when someone says "Python is better than Ruby" or vice versa... :)

It's a media thing

I beg to differ. I'm not going to make claims of a vast media conspiracy, but it is most certainly not the case that the media casts socialism as bad and capitalism as good.

For example, I submit that one of the most hackneyed themes of movies is the greedy capitalist exploiting others or preventing needed initiatives.

As far as I can see, the media consistently mis-frames the economic issues such that today's corporatism (corporate welfare, rent seeking, regulatory capture, etc.) are cast as problems of capitalism, when in fact they are antithetical to that system.

And on the other hand, major facets of our society (e.g., public education, labor unions) that clearly are socialist, are never referenced as such.

In short, I think that the media is just messed up, and anybody on either side of the philosophical divide that accepts media input unfiltered, is going to be horribly confused.

EDIT: I reversed the sense of good/bad in 1st paragraph. It doesn't really matter, since my thesis is that they're completely confused.

And on the other hand, major facets of our society (e.g., public education, labor unions) that clearly are socialist, are never referenced as such.

Don't forget the military. Universal health care, pensions, subsidized housing, job security, etc are all socialist; except somehow when applied to the military.

how could universal health care ever be construed as a bad thing?

Universal healthcare construes long waits and inadequate care to me. The universal health care slogan should be: "The efficiency of the DMV, the compassion of the IRS".

The current state of health care in the US is definitely sub-optimal, but it is better than one run by the government.

Right, just like in Canada, the UK and France...

I agree with you in spirit, but I don't trust _our_ government to do a similar job.

That's a good point. I think in part that is because of the strength and amount of lobbying going on in the US and the many cross ties between business and government.

I'm not aware of any other country where lobbyists have that much influence.

Shocking, really the amount of money that goes in to that:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health-care-reform/2009/07/...

"Universal healthcare" != "government-run healthcare". Under the US plan for universal healthcare, the government does not take over the healthcare providers. Rather, it is more tightly regulating insurance companies and businesses to increase the number of citizens with health insurance; and it is increasing the size of its own insurance plans to fill the gap for those who are still uninsured.

The healthcare continues to be provided by current providers.

One thing that "capitalism" and "socialism" share is the connotations of control associated with them _by their opponents_

Most people - like 90% of people - don't know the difference.

But when someone tries to articulate it, you first (incorrectly) attribute the idea to Karl Marx, and then try to dissuade him from even using the word. 'Free action' is a useless term in this context, because it captures nothing of the cooperative or mutual elements that Raganwald is discussing.

Let's not forget "democratic socialism", which actually works fine as a modern, free society in about a dozen countries which are still very much anti-communist.

And of course there's "glenn beck" socialism, which is mostly an ad hom accusation.

And of course there's "glenn beck" socialism

Glenn Beck is an entertainer, and should not be confused in any way with someone with knowledge of social and economic systems. If you take his commentary seriously, you're almost certain to be barking up the wrong tree.

All you say is true, but at least 1/4 of the country does take everything he says extremely seriously. If you want a citation, check the numbers on people who think Obama's a muslim or not a US citizen. I think we can all agree that the guy's a clown but he's definitely influential and relevant.

I don't really see any substantive distinction between this concept of "libertarian socialism" and ordinary libertarianism.

If people are free to pursue their economic goals by voluntary cooperation, it presumes a recognition of underlying property rights. In the absence of external control, many would exercise their rights by monetizing their participation in the economy in order to earn a profit. Many others would adopt a broad "open source" ethos. Most would probably engage in a mix of both, in varying circumstances, and at all levels of formalization.

Freedom and openness lead to healthy variation. It's the philosophies that pursue the universal adoption of a single doctrine that are unnatural and destructive, no matter whether they go by the name of "socialism", "capitalism", or otherwise.

> it presumes a recognition of underlying property rights

There's your difference. Libertarian Socialists don't believe in private property.

If there is no private property, then you don't own your body, as to own your body would mean you owned some private property. If you don't own your body then you are a slave and there is no practical difference between that philosophy and any tyrannical system of government.

Sorry, I forgot to add the caveat: private property means something different in the anarchist context. They make a distinction between 'private property' and 'possession,' your body would be a possession.

All physical property is the same, you exchange labor for it.

This distinction, and the claim that government is hat creates the property seems to come from not thinking e notion of personal property thru.

Basically, at some point, you're advocating taking property away from people ewho have up earned it by creating it or by trading their labor for it.

You need a gang, a mafia, or a government to do that, especially when it's 10,0000 acres somewhere that a collective, or corporation, has put together.

The only difference between a collective owning property and a corporation is that a corporation is allowed to make agreements amongst the members for how the corporation is run.

The existence of a government is not necessary for the existence of corporations.

These are not made up properties created by government, but collections of property made up of possibly thousands of individual explicit agreements between people.

To end that have to stick your nose in as third party and break those agreements that people voluntarily entered into before came around.

> All physical property is the same, you exchange labor for it.

This is overly simplistic. Locke was a cool guy and all, but not everyone subscribes to his worldview.

> Basically, at some point, you're advocating taking property away from people ewho have up earned it by creating it or by trading their labor for it.

No, I'm not.

Yes, you are. Whether you call it a possession or property, tibias the same thing.

Obviously, we're not going to come to any sort of agreement here. And we never were. The point is, your worldview is not the only one. That doesn't make mine any better or worse. Just different.

Thank you for the discussion. I'm not going to respond to you any more.

It varies by what particular kind of anarchist you're talking about, but the kind of property that's most consistently objected to is a government-enforced notion of "possessions on paper", with a lot more acceptance of things that look more like personal possessions. Say, the difference between living in a house, and owning 10,000 acres of development land in suburban San Diego. The first seems vaguely like a natural sense of possession, in that you live in a place, and you don't want people intruding into your bedroom and such. But owning huge tracts of land as an absentee landlord is more of a purely government-guaranteed notion of property, pretty disconnected from any natural sense of personal possession.

Put differently, property as a way of formalizing personal possession relationships is less objectionable to most anarchists (though many are skeptical of actually formalizing it) than property as a way of creating new kinds of ownership. You can see ownership of your house as just a formal ratification of "I live in this house", but ownership of 10,000 acres of land you've never visited is a pure creation of property-deed databases, and is hard to imagine existing without them.

(Whether that's good or bad, or what to do about it, is another story. I consider myself sympathetic to anarchist critiques and ideals, but putting forth workable concrete proposals is hard.)

You are mixing up private property with personal property.

The term "libertarian socialism" is being used here to describe the opinions of the article's author, which focus on an economy rooted in voluntary participation and cooperation.

But how can you have an economy based on voluntary cooperation without the understanding that the voluntary aspect depends on the disposition of property at the discretion of its owners?

If some external authority can overrule you as to how your computer or your farm equipment or your land is used, your choice is between complying with their demands or surrendering your means to participate in the economy altogether; in this scenario, voluntarism is undermined.

Without a concept of private property, a voluntary economy cannot exist.

I'm talking about the actual term, not raganwald's views (and incidentally, my own).

In a Libertarian Socialist society, there would be no external authority. The state doesn't exist. You couldn't own land, but your computer and your farm equipment are possessions, which they make distinct from 'private property.'

Marx's socialism is a society where democracy instead of profit guide production and resources.

  Socialism has a definition - it was coined and defined by Marx

The definition of socialism has evolved since then. Raganwald is a socialist, in the same sense in which the ruling parties in many Western European countries call their form of government a 'social democracy'. It's only in the US that 'socialism' is a scary word that nobody wants to be associated with. To US standards, 75% of Western Europe votes for socialist parties.

Came here to point this out aswell. Google would not have been possible to grow out of a socialistic country.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com