The article blatantly says that they’re just defining socialism as “a centrally planned economy”. At that point, why not just use that term rather than shoehorning socialism onto it?
I edited my comment to clarify, because my original wording was ambigious, thats exactly what I meant there, why not use the term central planning directly in the title rather than defining socialism in an arbitrary way?
why not use the term central planning directly in the title rather than defining socialism in an arbitrary way?
Maybe because even that wouldn’t say all that much - all economies are centrally planned at a national level - even the ones peddling “free market” mythology in an attempt to prove they aren’t. The US Military-Industrial Complex is no less a product of central planning than Cuba’s healthcare system is.
If socialist means centrally planned economy, and all countries are centrally planned, then all countries are socialist.
World revolution achieved! We did it, lemmy.
Edit: Jokes aside, I don’t quite get why you two are arguing. You seem to more or less agree that the study doesn’t actually discuss socialist countries.
If an economy is (centrally) planned, produces to satisfy needs rather than for profit, abolishes money as value form, then you get a socialist mode of production. Full economic planning is the biggest part of what socialism would be.
Of course that is what socialism is unless you go for Stalinist revision of the term, or bourgeois socialism (think Mussolini’s Italy but a bit more leftist) - in that case it’s meaning can be whatever one wants it to be
I literally just paraphrased Marx’s definition of that mode of production as seen in Critique of Gotha Programme, where he critiqued Lassallean utopian socialists who didn’t know what they were fighting.
In this definition, socialist mode of production is when commodity production is abolished (which is the defining feature of capitalism) and replaced by producing for needs which is achieved via economic planning (since how else are you going to know how much to produce), value form is abolished meaning one cannot accumulate money/capital anymore, therefore ownership and class divisions it brings are also abolished since you can’t extract surplus value anymore. The economic planning would also act as a regulator for work hours, meaning instead of working a set 8 hours every day a worker would have to work as long as it is socially necessary to fulfill all the needs, which would almost always be much shorter if you consider capitalist overproduction, inefficiencies and so on.
This was a major goal of communists and even some socialist reformists worldwide that wasn’t historically achieved given how all of the revolutions happened in undeveloped countries (can’t produce for needs if there’s no factories to produce them) and failed to achieve internationalism (it’s necessary, both for globalized cooperation for trade to build socialism and for defense against capitalist influences and aggression). Of course, after Stalin came along and shit all over this definition with his “socialism in one state” concept where the country started focusing on national interests in a way that wasn’t different from capitalist states, that’s when waters became muddied.
If you think this definition is invalid, what do you think socialism is then and how does it differ from capitalism?
socialist mode of production is when commodity production is abolished
It’s a useless “definition.” Commodity production doesn’t have to be abolished for a mode of production to be called socialist. If that was true, no socialist experiment anywhere, at any time could be called socialist.
The abolition of commodity production might be an inevitable result of a socialist mode of production, but that hardly tells us anything about who it is that’s doing the production and the who it is that is deciding what must be produced, does it? The who is important, don’t you think?
meaning instead of working a set 8 hours every day a worker would have to work as long as it is socially necessary to fulfill all the needs,
And who will be doing the enforcing of this?
Of course, after Stalin came along and shit all over this definition with his “socialism in one state”
Blaming it all on Stalin isn’t going to fly.
If you think this definition is invalid, what do you think socialism is then and how does it differ from capitalism?
What is wrong with an understanding (I avoid the term “definition” like the plague) of socialism that actually offers the working class something?
The article blatantly says that they’re just defining socialism as “a centrally planned economy”. At that point, why not just use that term rather than shoehorning socialism onto it?
Because that is not what socialism is, ever has been or ever will be. No ifs, ands or buts.
I edited my comment to clarify, because my original wording was ambigious, thats exactly what I meant there, why not use the term central planning directly in the title rather than defining socialism in an arbitrary way?
Maybe because even that wouldn’t say all that much - all economies are centrally planned at a national level - even the ones peddling “free market” mythology in an attempt to prove they aren’t. The US Military-Industrial Complex is no less a product of central planning than Cuba’s healthcare system is.
If socialist means centrally planned economy, and all countries are centrally planned, then all countries are socialist.
World revolution achieved! We did it, lemmy.
Edit: Jokes aside, I don’t quite get why you two are arguing. You seem to more or less agree that the study doesn’t actually discuss socialist countries.
Free headpats all around.
Because we’re leftists?
I guess that tracks.
If an economy is (centrally) planned, produces to satisfy needs rather than for profit, abolishes money as value form, then you get a socialist mode of production. Full economic planning is the biggest part of what socialism would be.
Of course that is what socialism is unless you go for Stalinist revision of the term, or bourgeois socialism (think Mussolini’s Italy but a bit more leftist) - in that case it’s meaning can be whatever one wants it to be
You can’t have a “socialist” mode of production and simply ignore the role of the working class in said mode of production.
If you are a fan of a party apparatus dictating the working class’ needs and wants for it then that’s your ideology… but don’t call it socialism.
I literally just paraphrased Marx’s definition of that mode of production as seen in Critique of Gotha Programme, where he critiqued Lassallean utopian socialists who didn’t know what they were fighting.
In this definition, socialist mode of production is when commodity production is abolished (which is the defining feature of capitalism) and replaced by producing for needs which is achieved via economic planning (since how else are you going to know how much to produce), value form is abolished meaning one cannot accumulate money/capital anymore, therefore ownership and class divisions it brings are also abolished since you can’t extract surplus value anymore. The economic planning would also act as a regulator for work hours, meaning instead of working a set 8 hours every day a worker would have to work as long as it is socially necessary to fulfill all the needs, which would almost always be much shorter if you consider capitalist overproduction, inefficiencies and so on.
This was a major goal of communists and even some socialist reformists worldwide that wasn’t historically achieved given how all of the revolutions happened in undeveloped countries (can’t produce for needs if there’s no factories to produce them) and failed to achieve internationalism (it’s necessary, both for globalized cooperation for trade to build socialism and for defense against capitalist influences and aggression). Of course, after Stalin came along and shit all over this definition with his “socialism in one state” concept where the country started focusing on national interests in a way that wasn’t different from capitalist states, that’s when waters became muddied.
If you think this definition is invalid, what do you think socialism is then and how does it differ from capitalism?
It’s a useless “definition.” Commodity production doesn’t have to be abolished for a mode of production to be called socialist. If that was true, no socialist experiment anywhere, at any time could be called socialist.
The abolition of commodity production might be an inevitable result of a socialist mode of production, but that hardly tells us anything about who it is that’s doing the production and the who it is that is deciding what must be produced, does it? The who is important, don’t you think?
And who will be doing the enforcing of this?
Blaming it all on Stalin isn’t going to fly.
What is wrong with an understanding (I avoid the term “definition” like the plague) of socialism that actually offers the working class something?