What are the alternatives to capitalism? Are they worse?

[New haven america]

But they do use Socialist ideals and practices, and are a lot better off for it compared to almost fully Capitalist countries (Like the US).

So no, if Capitalism was the undisputed winner, you wouldn't have people wanting to replace it.

What socialist practices do they use? They sure as shit haven't had people seize the means to production and all that fun stuff.

Universal Health Care, strict regulations and control over businesses and bankers, etc... all have roots in Socialism or are accepted by the tenants of Socialism.

[The Imperium Empires]

There is a reason capitalism is used by most of the world.

[Washington Resistance Army]

What socialist practices do they use? They sure as shit haven't had people seize the means to production and all that fun stuff.

Universal Health Care, strict regulations and control over businesses and bankers, etc... all have roots in Socialism or are accepted by the tenants of Socialism.

That's a pretty poor definition of socialist practices.

Most every country on the planet (barring some third world hellholes that can barely be called nations) can be said to use socialist practices if that's what we're using and that's just not true.

[The Geeses Commonwealth of Goosedom]

[
I said almost.

You do know what that word means, right?

Yes, but according to Oxford it means "not quite; very nearly"

I think 'very nearly' is an overstatement.

[Conscentia]

Worker's control of the means of production, ie. employee-ownership, is an alternative.

But can it work? It doesn't seem so. The Soviets abolished it due to problems with it, went back to one-man management and imposed 'labour discipline'.

What "problems" were these?

In Catalonia worker-owned factories were basically ran on capitalist lines and there were still inequalities in society. Mondragon is a close example of this today; they're worker owned, yet they exploit workers in South America.

And capitalism would improve this how? Seems the complaint here is that their employees in South America don't have enough autonomy - that the problem isn't worker's control, but a lack of it.

In Catalonia, a factory or collective raised the wages for their own whilst doing nothing for the starving unemployed. It seems that Revolutionary Catalonia's example shows that workers simply become elevated as a privileged class over those priced out of work and that the more integrated you are to this privileged class, the more you are sheltered from potentially detrimental economic downturn.

Even if I took your word for it, this isn't a problem inherent in worker's control. This is a problem with the specific policies of the Catalonians.

[The Wolfiad]

But can it work? It doesn't seem so. The Soviets abolished it due to problems with it, went back to one-man management and imposed 'labour discipline'.

What "problems" were these?

The fact it was possible for the USSR to exist as a viable state with worker's control. Too many workers were unskilled. Lenin recognised that Marxist-Leninism needed decades in order to develop. He knew that in the short term it was unviable. They had to organise their industry to catch up with other nations an skill up their workers. This would eventually lead up to the NEP which resulted in an economic recovery. There were people advocating for worker's control (the Worker's Opposition), but the result would have been workplaces acting in the best interests of their own workers as opposed to workers across the country, which what Lenin's reforms enabled.

In Catalonia worker-owned factories were basically ran on capitalist lines and there were still inequalities in society. Mondragon is a close example of this today; they're worker owned, yet they exploit workers in South America.

And capitalism would improve this how? Seems the complaint here is that their employees in South America don't have enough autonomy - that the problem isn't worker's control, but a lack of it.

The point is that workers within individual workplaces have no care for workers outside their workplace, or those who aren't regarded as holding the same privileges and entitlements. A state is needed with a monopoly on violence to ensure fairness within the country, otherwise you get another Catalonia.

In Catalonia, a factory or collective raised the wages for their own whilst doing nothing for the starving unemployed. It seems that Revolutionary Catalonia's example shows that workers simply become elevated as a privileged class over those priced out of work and that the more integrated you are to this privileged class, the more you are sheltered from potentially detrimental economic downturn.

Even if I took your word for it, this isn't a problem inherent in worker's control. This is a problem with the specific policies of the Catalonians.

Not really, it is inherent. Workers can't have full control because firstly (through rational self interest) if workers are more inclined to raise their own wages, cut their hours and decrease output by increasing their liberties, then it would cause real wage unemployment for the rest of population and in time would result in economic growth being limited. You could, of course, say 'that wouldn't happen', but really? Trade unions organise to secure the best possible rights and concessions for their workers from management. Cut out management and you just got workers setting their own rates. Where once they would have compromised or negotiated with management who'd set rates based on the economic circumstances that were ongoing, this no longer exists. Thus it's inevitable a privileged set of workers would emerge over other workers; it's a class system all over again.

Frankly it's a long bloody history. Socialism has only been successful within free and liberal democracy. Just as a reference, I'm counting social democratic parties as socialist here - the SPD and British Labour Party advocated ethical socialism for instance (basically social democracy), but many radical leftists like to exclude these successes from their definition of socialism oddly enough.

"We", by which I mean those of us here defending socialism, have been consistent and perfectly clear in why we do this. Socialism has one specific foundation. Ownership of the means of production by the workers. Not by the state, not by a hierarchy of bosses and bureaucracy, not by the capitalists.
Worker self-management, with horizontal and equal control, working for the benefit of those workers and their community. Another good term I omitted earlier would be "co-operative", and the term appears frequently in discussions of socialism and anarchism, since the [concept] is very apt.

This is commonly accepted to be the most basic tenet of socialism, and why those on the "far" left of Labour make a big stink over Clause 4.
Without Clause 4, Labour is not "socialist", remotely.

Social democracy is a plainly preferable alternative to neoliberal economics, or "traditional" (pre-monetarism) conservative economics. I think you'd have to find a doolally level of "radical leftist" to find someone who actually disagrees with that.
But it's still much less desirable than an actual socialist society.

Fine, but to me it still seems like puritanism. The reason why people like Bernstein, Crosland and Tawney shifted towards reformism was due to deficiencies within orthodox socialism after Marx's predictions didn't play out. They recognised socialism could be advanced better through legislation and the way that Continental Europe in the West turned out as opposed to the East pretty much vindicates that. The idea that a certain set of means is required to achieve the end of equality of opportunity and outcome is arbitrary.

Marxism claimed that it was impossible to achieve equality and concessions within a capitalist society, yet the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto have been applied in virtually all Western countries from a progressive income tax to universal state education to the centralised regulation of transport. Rights for workers have been secured, the NHS has been established and a comprehensive welfare state exists in the UK. The Tories want to revert these, but the fact is it's been proven that working within the system produces good outcomes. A number of these policies (i.e. universal health care) are so well-integrated within British society they can't be repealed; that is the long standing legacy of socialism.

Despite my attempts to clarify in the previous discussion we've had, I feel you're still conflating instances and examples where I had attempted to explicitly differentiate these, and you have not claimed to explicitly disagree with my differentiations. This puts me in the position that I don't know if you've dismissed those points I have made, or failed to understand my attempts to clarify them.

We come from two different places and approach this question in two different ways. I don't acknowledge for instance that capitalism is inherently impossible to socialise and that regardless capitalism as it has existed from 1945 onwards, even if you don't consider it socialised, was a far better place to live for workers than the Second World, whereas you believe this to be impossible and thus have concluded it needs to be overthrown.

One point I'd like to make before I leave though (I will come back, don't worry), is on the topic of violence.
You say it is hypocritical that ideologies supposedly in the explicit pursuit of free association and rejection of hierarchical institutions of violence. It's not untrue that this is damaging to the wider perception of socialist and anarchist ideologies, but it's also a drastic simplification.

The most basic, succinct point I can make here, is that it goes both ways. Capitalists will violently resist socialist and anarchist movements. They have, they do, and they are today.
Capitalists will not (and by capitalists I do not mean people generally in support of a capitalist system, whether by genuine favour or "the status quo's not that bad" - I mean "the capitalist class") relinquish the control, influence, and critically wealth they own, voluntarily. They will not cede resources to allow a separate socialist society to co-exist alongside it.

It's called seizing the means of production for a reason. The capitalist class own the means of production. They profit off the exploitation of worker's labour. They construct organisations to defend this "private property" from the masses (the historic role of the police force, before the modern institution we know today, which has of course retained this role).
It is a system set against workers and socialists, that will never willingly change. It would be patently necessary to engage in a violent revolt to instigate that change.

This does not make it "good". I want to use the word "justified", but that would be inflammatory. I would take no pleasure in the passing of a socialist revolution, because inherently, there would be a war. People would be killed. People would, probably, be executed - subversion, counter-revolution (these concepts have been most widely explored in Marxist-Leninist and further literature, I'm not aware of its discussion in earlier works and non-authoritarian concepts), etc.
Capitalists would fight to keep control of their property; they would fight to retake it.

I find this conclusion inescapable, and just as distasteful as you.

So no, if Capitalism was the undisputed winner, you wouldn't have people wanting to replace it.

I was more specifically critical of Anarchist Catalonia because of their extensive hypocrisy. Believe it or not Orwell didn't actually fight for the 'good guys' (POUM were allied to the CNT) and the Communist Party of Spain was far more benign. Anarchists within Catalonia may have controlled their own workplaces but still operated as if they were capitalists and caused real wage unemployment throughout Catalonia, thus denying others the liberty to work and contributing to inequality.For Christ's sake, they closed factories at the point of the gun. I'll take Stalinism over that because you're actually freer under that and it also isn't a hypocritical, self-refuting ideology.

[Philjia]

A mixed economy is the way to go. The government can take care of large scale utilities and other necessities where it can offer the best possible value to the consumer, or else operate in a sub-optimal way to provide a better service than the private sector would. The rest, the luxuries and frivolities (Which is most of the economy) can be left to the market. Throw in a boatload of social care provisions and whatnot, and that's probably the best you're going to get.

[The Wolfiad]

A mixed economy is the way to go. The government can take care of large scale utilities and other necessities where it can offer the best possible value to the consumer, or else operate in a sub-optimal way to provide a better service than the private sector would. The rest, the luxuries and frivolities (Which is most of the economy) can be left to the market. Throw in a boatload of social care provisions and whatnot, and that's probably the best you're going to get.

In terms of modern economics, pretty much. Government involvement in certain industries to avoid market failures and worker exploitation markets for the rest, combined with redistribution and the maintenance of a welfare state.

[Betoni]

When you have these discussions on a level that isn't purely theoretical, and completely disassociated with history, you are inviting views and perspective of history and the human psyche that are colored by whatever side you are defending. I don't know which kind of a discussion is more fruitful. Nevertheless, when discussing the history of humanity, one should keep in mind that economics are only a part of it. Same goes to claims about innovations and inventions.

[Kariscene]

I think seeking the balance in it is pretty key. I suppose it's a bit Nietche in thinking and I never met the guy and he was definitely from a different time especially in context to equal rights but the simplicity of the theory can be of great aideance. Anyhow, so in the US, pre Donald, Woody Guthrie sang many a tunes in retaliation to Trump Senior raising the rent. It may have been him or the RatliffRouge, I can't remember exactly but they tag instruments as machines, that kill fascists. Strong words but really in prevention of violence. Hopefully. And somehow down the road, the US got a president out of it. Definitely not perfect, pretty far from great in almost half their eyes but swelling in noticing the impermanence and sheer beauty of possibility. Capitalism might be the most efficient way of democracy now but comes with a price when the workers are too out of time, and lose notice or track of the balance. Someone made a really good point early on individualism in this area. But, everybody was born out of some kind of fury. This is why I do not totally disregard anarchy but believe it should not be nurtured(doesn't have to be) Unless it is the ONlY way for a group of people to survive. I'm no historian but I imagine more of us wear more of those color of jeans than we think.

[Ragusan North America]

For what it's worth, not all forms of private enterprise are capitalistic.

"Capitalism" is just a set of laws that provide for proportional return on partial investment. You can have private enterprise and a free market without capitalism, just by not providing the legal framework for capitalism so that every enterprise must be wholly-owned by one individual. Most businesses - I think - work this way anyways. Capitalism was introduced as an efficiency measure, allowing investment dollars - i.e. capital - to come from multiple sources, so a business is not wholly dependent on one investor. Also, by spreading the ownership of enterprises around, you reduce the risk of a business failure impacting any one investor too harshly, which in turn promotes more investment.

The unfortunate side effect in a system like this is that, as long as you have money and can spread your investments around evenly enough, in a growing economy you will always make more money. This creates a permanent upper class supported mainly by existing wealth rather than actual smart investment or personal initiative - a modern nobility, if you will. Entry into this class is still possible, but made harder by the fact that people already in this class can never fail. Furthermore, the incentive is there to maximize growth at any cost, a problematic proposition in a finite world.

As to whether this is worse than capitalism... I would say it's sufficient for small businesses but insufficient for businesses that are necessarily large - think car companies, for example. For those, I think some form of social enterprise would be better - probably not state-run and centrally-planned, but at least with enough economic democracy so that the ownership isn't getting the lion's share of the benefit.

[Imperializt Russia]

"We", by which I mean those of us here defending socialism, have been consistent and perfectly clear in why we do this. Socialism has one specific foundation. Ownership of the means of production by the workers. Not by the state, not by a hierarchy of bosses and bureaucracy, not by the capitalists.
Worker self-management, with horizontal and equal control, working for the benefit of those workers and their community. Another good term I omitted earlier would be "co-operative", and the term appears frequently in discussions of socialism and anarchism, since the [concept] is very apt.

This is commonly accepted to be the most basic tenet of socialism, and why those on the "far" left of Labour make a big stink over Clause 4.
Without Clause 4, Labour is not "socialist", remotely.

Social democracy is a plainly preferable alternative to neoliberal economics, or "traditional" (pre-monetarism) conservative economics. I think you'd have to find a doolally level of "radical leftist" to find someone who actually disagrees with that.
But it's still much less desirable than an actual socialist society.

Fine, but to me it still seems like puritanism. The reason why people like Bernstein, Crosland and Tawney shifted towards reformism was due to deficiencies within orthodox socialism after Marx's predictions didn't play out. They recognised socialism could be advanced better through legislation and the way that Continental Europe in the West turned out as opposed to the East pretty much vindicates that. The idea that a certain set of means is required to achieve the end of equality of opportunity and outcome is arbitrary.

Marxism claimed that it was impossible to achieve equality and concessions within a capitalist society, yet the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto have been applied in virtually all Western countries from a progressive income tax to universal state education to the centralised regulation of transport. Rights for workers have been secured, the NHS has been established and a comprehensive welfare state exists in the UK. The Tories want to revert these, but the fact is it's been proven that working within the system produces good outcomes. A number of these policies (i.e. universal health care) are so well-integrated within British society they can't be repealed; that is the long standing legacy of socialism.

No-one is denying that these are "socialist principles", with roots in socialist ideology.
Without worker control over the means of production - it's not socialism. Socialism is the dismantling of capitalism, and the abolition of the capitalist class.
It's fundamental, I don't know how we're still needing to make this distinction.

I'm half tempted to say that calling social democracy "socialism" in common public discourse is OK, but I'm coming closer to refusing to accept that, because of how "socialism" is used as a slur and a dirty word in the US, and even here in the UK. Again, Labour removed Clause 4. Even Corbyn won't commit to reinstating it, even as a symbolic change.

I've hardly been following his public speeches, but I don't think I've ever heard him use the term "social democracy" or "socialism" for his vision for the UK. I've heard plenty of Labour Party MPs, including Jess Philips and possibly Corbyn himself describe themselves as "socialists", but never as having a "socialist vision" for the UK. There are a number of reasons why this could be, but this would be mind-reading to posit them. They are all, in practice, social democrats (and I'm not saying this because they're not fighting an insurrection, therefore "no true socialistman").

Despite my attempts to clarify in the previous discussion we've had, I feel you're still conflating instances and examples where I had attempted to explicitly differentiate these, and you have not claimed to explicitly disagree with my differentiations. This puts me in the position that I don't know if you've dismissed those points I have made, or failed to understand my attempts to clarify them.

We come from two different places and approach this question in two different ways. I don't acknowledge for instance that capitalism is inherently impossible to socialise and that regardless capitalism as it has existed from 1945 onwards, even if you don't consider it socialised, was a far better place to live for workers than the Second World, whereas you believe this to be impossible and thus have concluded it needs to be overthrown.

I thought we'd already settled this as well, but OK. I don't know why you think I'm confused why living standards have been better in the first world than the "second world".

The western world was already industrialised. Our society had technology and equipment to better it.
The states that claim to have undergone "socialist revolutions" didn't. They spent a century playing catch-up to the west, from being two hundred or more years behind. Oh, and being variously devastated by wars in the meantime, much more than "the west", which obviously includes the unscathed US mainland. Unsurprisingly, Russia and China are still behind the west.

The cynical argument is that our living standards have only increased because if they hadn't, the capitalists would have been fighting off a socialist revolution already. Capitalists pre-monetarism were acutely aware of this. The New Deal, for example. Since Monetarism and the fetishistic fascination with Ayn Rand that (#NotAll) capitalists seem to have taken on board, they seem to have forgotten about this.
I think these two charts are very telling. The average productivity per worker, against the average wage per worker - in the US and UK.


The extraction of surplus value from the labour of workers is at the expense of workers. Had workers been "fairly" compensated for their increasing productivity, think how our living standards could be now - there wouldn't have been one million food bank visits in the last year. Or,
had the benefits of productivity not gone to the capitalist class but to "the co-operative", or alternatively, the state, the benefits of this could have been passed onto wider society, through the provision of social programmes.

But all it's actually been used to do, is enrich the already-wealthy capitalist class, at the expense of the workers.
It's not just the Tories, we can see from America this is part of a long-term trend of ideology, and New Labour has its part in this too.

[Socialist Nordia]

Feudalism /s

[THE ANARCHIST REFUGE]

ANARCHISM IS THE GREATEST

[Ryock]

Corporatism?

[Minzerland II]

They use socialist principles, ideals, and slogans; but they arent socialist. Not even Denmark. Therefore my argument still stands. If anything, the inability to achieve socialism despite countries promoting irs tenents favors my argument that capitalism is the undisputed winner.

But they do use Socialist ideals and practices, and are a lot better off for it compared to almost fully Capitalist countries (Like the US).

So no, if Capitalism was the undisputed winner, you wouldn't have people wanting to replace it.

Lolwut

Capitalism would have people wanting to replace it regardless of whether or not it was the undisputed winner.

[Ryock]

They use socialist principles, ideals, and slogans; but they arent socialist. Not even Denmark. Therefore my argument still stands. If anything, the inability to achieve socialism despite countries promoting irs tenents favors my argument that capitalism is the undisputed winner.

But they do use Socialist ideals and practices, and are a lot better off for it compared to almost fully Capitalist countries (Like the US).

So no, if Capitalism was the undisputed winner, you wouldn't have people wanting to replace it.

You're right.

Success in western Europe + existence of socialist policies in Europe = proof that socialism works

Haven't you heard that correlation always means causation?

[Catochristoferson]

But they do use Socialist ideals and practices, and are a lot better off for it compared to almost fully Capitalist countries (Like the US).

So no, if Capitalism was the undisputed winner, you wouldn't have people wanting to replace it.

You're right.

Success in western Europe + existence of socialist policies in Europe = proof that socialism works

Haven't you heard that correlation always means causation?

"Socialist" policies, yeah right. Welfare =/= Socialism

The "Scandinavian" model is still capitalist.

[Ryock]

You're right.

Success in western Europe + existence of socialist policies in Europe = proof that socialism works

Haven't you heard that correlation always means causation?

"Socialist" policies, yeah right. Welfare =/= Socialism

Those are NHA's words, not mine.

[Catochristoferson]

"Socialist" policies, yeah right. Welfare =/= Socialism

Those are NHA's words, not mine.

Well New Haven America doesn't know what socialism is.

[AsReil]

Every other form of govern? They'd all function differently, but there's no one correct way to run a nation.

[Imperializt Russia]

Corporatism?

Interesting, because when neolibs fervently try to defend capitalism and say how anticapitalists or (((socialists))) are all dumb, corporatism is usually the scapegoat slain on the Randian altar.

[The of Japan]

According to Marxism/Leninism, The ultimate goal is a utopia, in which there are common ownership of the means of production with free access to the articles of consumption and is classless and stateless, implying the end of the exploitation of labor. However, as with other utopias, this isn't possible with humans, as it would require a higher level of perfection and obedience than we are capable of nowadays. As such, all attempts to achieve said utopia have failed, and often with terrible results.

[Jello Biafra]

We also then get to the problem that, inevitably, there are people who will want a state (like the socialists and communists noting the limitations of anarchy) and the weaknesses of anarchist ideology (constant deliberation, lack of central authority, a fundamental opposition to hierarchy etc) means that any statist ideology, fascism or not, will triumph over the anarchists. Additionally, anarchism needs to be established when there exists an appetite for revolutionary change and time after time (i.e. Ukraine after the Russian Revolution) that anarchism is always defeated by another force.Anarchism is simply incompatible with human nature, certainly more so communism - hierarchies inevitably form and are needed to maintain an organisation or a society.

Well, the article you cite says this:

Organizations and people need hierarchy. While there is no doubt that some hierarchies are better designed than others, an interesting test is what happens when there is little or no consensus about who has more – and less — power. Gruenfeld and Tiedens describe a series of studies showing that when such agreement is absent (so the nature of the formal or informal pecking order is not clear), members become less committed to their groups, less productive and effective, dysfunctional competition for status emerge, and coordination and cooperation suffer.

However, this doesn't seem to be what Gruenfeld and Tiedens had to say (on pages 11 and 12 of the pdf):

In light of the empirical evidence reviewed above, the answer to the question of whether steeper hierarchies help groups function better is: ‘‘it depends.’’ First, it depends on the outcome under consideration. In terms of attitude-related outcomes such as satisfaction or commitment to the group, the evidence was robust. Taller hierarchical structures almost always predicted worse attitude-related outcomes. Groups and organizations with steeper hierarchies tended to have members who were less satisfied, less motivated, and more inclined to leave the group.
With regard to group performance, the evidence was much more mixed. Laboratory studies of small groups and teams as well as field studies of organizational structure and compensation systems showed that sometimes steeper hierarchies help groups perform better and sometimes they do not. Sometimes flatter, more egalitarian structures were better for group and organizational performance.
Given the consistent negative relation found between hierarchy steepness and attitude-related outcomes, and the highly mixed findings on performance, it is reasonable to conclude that strong functionalist arguments were not supported by the data. More hierarchical groups did not uniformly function better than flatter groups. In fact, not only did more hierarchical groups often fail to outperform flatter groups (which would have been demonstrated by null effects) – they often performed worse than flatter groups. This suggests that flatter structures are often more advantageous for group and organizational success.

Gruenfeld and Tiedens said that less hierarchal structures almost always lead to more satisfaction, motivation, and loyalty. Also, in some of the studies, the less hierarchal groups performed better than the more hierarchal groups. Bob Sutton is very selectively citing Gruenfeld and Tiedens.

[Imperializt Russia]

According to Marxism/Leninism, The ultimate goal is a utopia, in which there are common ownership of the means of production with free access to the articles of consumption and is classless and stateless, implying the end of the exploitation of labor. However, as with other utopias, this isn't possible with humans, as it would require a higher level of perfection and obedience than we are capable of nowadays. As such, all attempts to achieve said utopia have failed, and often with terrible results.

This is blatantly untrue.

People who agree with the capitalist system and act to compete against one another are not the model citizens of a socialist utopia, no.
But people co-operated in communal societies for millennia before "capitalism", which one could argue is only 200-600 years old as we know it in the west, depending on how liberally you choose to define it.