I know this is quoted from an old thread found here, but I've been thinking about this since I'm currently reading "Socialism" by Mises. And with mercy, my quoting of Esuric and bringing this back up, is what I hope the reception will be.
Esuric:Tomorrow the whole world becomes one unified socialist common wealth. Prices are gone, and all records to previous prices have been forgotten. The socialist planner and his minions have no access to actual economic opportunity costs (no possibility for rational economic calculation). Can he (and his minions) produce a warship (ignoring costs to society, ect)?
What I failed to notice before is this. Would this actually be socialism in Esuric's question? Isn't this one reason why in any particular nation that pushes for socialism from day one the rebellion or election takes place and socialism is enacted one obvious reason, that I failed to notice before, is that politically socialism had failed because the end result is a dictator takes over? A dictatorship isn't socialism. Socialism is the community owns the means of production which is why Mises contrasts socialism with private property, meaning, human action (individual rationality) in the free enterprise market. This is why socialism is impossible.
First, no economic calculation, no common denominator of exchange value via price mechanism, includes no money. Second, it fails considerably right off the bat and so a dictator fills the rational void in an effort to maintain rationality, ie. individual purposeful action. And with propaganda the utopian dream is dragged on and on that someday the 'promised land' will be established. To answer the question above appears to be to question the underlying assumption "he (and his minions)" are not what a socialist society is. It's a dictatorship. I think that may clear things up.
thoughts...
This isn't really an answer but general correlation that i think is worth pointing out. Throughout history (BC - now) dictators have been associated with mobs and populism, this is I think similar to democracy and socialism. The major exception I can kind of think of are the dictators from the Fascist era.
Dondoolee:The major exception I can kind of think of are the dictators from the Fascist era.
Even then, wasn't Hitler a product of democratic elections. And Mussolini had the populist behind him which influenced the Italian monarchy to back him. I don't know enough about this era. Could you point out the exception? Cause when I think Fascism, I think of two dictators.
And I agree these are historical examples that correlate and may not describe causation. What I'm trying to do is point out that by definition isn't "a man and his minions" a dictatorship or oligarchy. And by definition from what I gather in Mises book, socialism is community control of the means of production. Community is way on the other end of the spectrum of dictatorship and oligarchies.
I think most people who point to Republican vs Nationalist Spain. But I'm not sure it actually does contradict the correlation between populism and dictators.
Peace
JonBostwick:I think most people who point to Republican vs Nationalist Spain.
I think I may know what Dondolee and Bostwick are trying to point out. I'm trying to think how this fits in with the use of the word 'socialism' by Mises.
Maybe I should explain more. I may not have provided enough background on that debate I quoted a link to.
The question was put forth by various posters that had asked: Could a global socialist community still economically calculate? Some answers were no. It would be impossible. Yet the question was reformed to ask: So a man and his minions couldn't dictate to society to build a warship? He couldn't will it even though there are no prices?
Here's how filc phrased the question at the beginning of that thread I linked in the OP:
filc:DD5 lets say I am socialist country? I have a schematic for building a warship, and all related schematics for building it's sub-components. Lets assume there is no money and that my socialist council is directing resources. Why is it impossible for me to complete the construction of a single warship. (Starvation or lack of other needed goods aside, the argument is not about being efficient/inefficient as running an economy, but about being capable of completing and planning 1 single object in production)
Lets assume there is no money and that my socialist council is directing resources. Why is it impossible for me to complete the construction of a single warship. (Starvation or lack of other needed goods aside, the argument is not about being efficient/inefficient as running an economy, but about being capable of completing and planning 1 single object in production)
I think the assumption was "socialist council" and one individual is a "socialist country". Throughout the thread the term "dictator" was even used to describe how one person could still manage to build a warship in a socialist country. But my point is it's not a socialist country, meaning, a community owning the means of production. It's a dictatorship or oligarchy, which thereby yes such political institutions could pull off building a warship, but not the socialist community. The socialist community is impossible and a fantasy. It never comes to final fruition cause it's logically impossible which is what Mises thoroughly appears to have proven.
or what filc said here:
filc:It is implied that coercion us used under a socialist regime, thats just a given. The point is, he is still capable of producing a warship, he just cracks the whips and sends his serfs to do the job. How long it takes him and what quality is a result is for another discussion. The question is not whether or not coercion is applied. Being a socialist nation that is a given. The coercion is ultimately what breaks the formation meaningful of prices.
The question is not whether or not coercion is applied. Being a socialist nation that is a given. The coercion is ultimately what breaks the formation meaningful of prices.
My bolding. That's a dictatorship, not socialism.
further thoughts....?
As far as Fascism/Nazism, I am going to exclude them as they seem to be a different beast entirely. To me they seem like a kind of "new", "compromised" or "pseudo" Right wing built entirely off the nation state era. More importantly their formation, function, philosophy, etc is a bit out of my knowledge for me to comment on at great length. My major point on them was they may be a major exception to what I was trying to show and the scope and time on the "fascist era" was brief and ultimately insignificant when looking at the correlation as I was trying to point out as a whole.
wilderness:What I'm trying to do is point out that by definition isn't "a man and his minions" a dictatorship or oligarchy. And by definition from what I gather in Mises book, socialism is community control of the means of production. Community is way on the other end of the spectrum of dictatorship and oligarchie
Like I said, I don't want to say a dictator = socialism. I suppose it could (there is obviously the famous but vague "dictator of the proletariat term) and in fact has happened (Castro, some SA/ Africa dictators). What is more accurate though is that a dictator usually signifies massive redistribution and an over throw of many/most elements of the old regimes. A dictator also signifies populism and mobs much like democracy and socialism. I think the two are cousins or on the same spectrum of thinking.
EDIT: last 2 sentences.
Dondoolee:Like I said, I don't want to say a dictator = socialism. I suppose it could (there is obviously the famous but vague "dictator of the proletariat term) and in fact has happened (Castro, some SA/ Africa dictators). What is more accurate though is that a dictator usually signifies massive redistribution and an over throw of many/most elements of the old regimes. A dictator also signifies populism and mobs.
Great points.
Yet Castro and African dictators, are they really socialist societies? Are they not more identifiable with dictatorship's trying to force socialism, but never actually having socialism because the community isn't owning the means of production. The community needs a dictator to establish the means of production since the community (socialism) isn't possible. Look at Venezuela. Chavez dictates everything from farms to banks to currency values. That's a one man show, not a community.
wilderness: Yet Castro and African dictators, are they really socialist societies? Are they not more identifiable with dictatorship's trying to force socialism, but never actually having socialism because the community isn't owning the means of production.
Yet Castro and African dictators, are they really socialist societies? Are they not more identifiable with dictatorship's trying to force socialism, but never actually having socialism because the community isn't owning the means of production.
If "Socialism" is to have any practical meaning at all then yes the state owning the means of production equals socialism.
There is an obvious inner contradiction of Socialism in that state ownership is not exactly societal ownership, but it is a contradiction that can not be resolved. In Socialist Yugoslavia the state tried to pretend to resolve this by introducing an additional category of societal ownership, but in practice it turned out there was not a dime's worth of difference between factories that were state owned and the factories that were supposedly socially owned.
This post by Lilburne linked to a speech Ron P. gave on how Obama is not a socialist but is a corporatist also had me thinking more about this as well.
wilderness:Yet Castro and African dictators, are they really socialist societies? Are they not more identifiable with dictatorship's trying to force socialism, but never actually having socialism because the community isn't owning the means of production. The community needs a dictator to establish the means of production since the community (socialism) isn't possible. Look at that Venezuela. Chavez dictates everything from farms to banks to currency values. That's a one man show, not a community
You are correct on technical terms (communal calculation, it's a b*tch); politically though you can get away with calling it socialism if use the term "dictator of the proletariat" (and I have seen that term used in many different ways by lefties, so I do not know the "correct" meaning of it) or other nonsense "transitionary" phrases that socialists seem to find acceptable, or abolish private property or currency (something other dictators don't usually do).
Marko:There is an obvious inner contradiction of Socialism in that state ownership is not exactly societal ownership, but it is a contradiction that can not be resolved. In Socialist Yugoslavia the state tried to pretend to resolve this by introducing an addition category of societal ownership, but in practice it turned out there was not a dime's worth of difference between factories that were state owned and the factories that were supposedly socially owned.
Yes. A contradiction because as you point out socialism can't establish itself in the whole of society. The largest example is the Soviet Union. The more it tried to establish socialism the worse off it got, not only Stalinist tactics but it's utter collapse as the effort to socialism isn't even sustainable. North Korea gets so much aid by the U.S. and other countries. I know Clinton and I believe other presidents, Bush may have to, gave N. K. money to stop it's nuclear program. I believe China helps out N.K. too.
I say this because Mises says in his book that communism and fascism are socialism so I want that kept in mind.
No, a contradiction because the state is not the same as society. You mentioned community owning the means of production, but in the Soviet Union community (society) did not own anything.
Dondoolee:You are correct on technical terms (communal calculation, it's a b*tch); politically though you can get away with calling it socialism if use the term "dictator of the proletariat" (and I have seen that term used in many different ways by lefties, so I do not know the "correct" meaning of it) or other nonsense "transitionary" phrases that socialists seem to find acceptable, or abolish private property or currency (something other dictators don't usually do).
That's a great distinction. I think that clears this up. Yes, I was referring to economic socialism. Politically the term socialism is used often, even in European countries and the U.S. there are Democratic Socialists. I believe in Europe they even get elected to political offices. I was referring strictly to economic socialism, but pointing out that the political end result of trying to establish economic socialism isn't a economic socialist community. Politically it fails to get to such an economic state of affairs and either turns into syndicate socialism or dictatorship with all units in-between. The actual economic socialism that political socialist parties advocate is impossible to come to fruition and the end result of the many political means to get economic socialism are economically disastrous. But anarchic socialists can try I guess, as long as they aren't turning to initiating physical aggression onto dissenters which would only turn into conflict and again furthering the economic downfall. But I'm not really trying to get into the political means on how best to establish economic socialism because I think that's is impossible anyways as Mises points out.
Marko:No, a contradiction because the state is not the same as society. You mentioned community owning the means of production, but in the Soviet Union community (society) did not own anything.
Right, because it's impossible for the whole of the community to own the means of production, ie. economic socialism.
I added the adjective "economic" onto socialism because that's what I have meant since the OP. I'm not talking about self-professed political societies that call themselves socialists. I'm talking about the economic term socialism.
wilderness: I'm talking about the economic term socialism.
The abolishment of the institution of private property and the entire market economy. The transfer of all control over the means of production from capitalists and entrepreneurs to one central authority. I believe that would be a good economic definition for socialism that is compatible with Mises.
DD5: wilderness: I'm talking about the economic term socialism. The abolishment of the institution of private property and the entire market economy. The tranfer of all control over the means of production from capitalists and entrepreneurs to one central authority. I believe that would be a good economic definition for socialism that is compatible with Mises.
The abolishment of the institution of private property and the entire market economy. The tranfer of all control over the means of production from capitalists and entrepreneurs to one central authority. I believe that would be a good economic definition for socialism that is compatible with Mises.
Would you agree with these distinctions, since you were involved in those past discussions I linked:
The goal of socialism is public ownership of the means of production. That is impossible therefore...
...what ends up happening is potentially a dictatorship, or as you put it, "one central authority" which isn't the goal and therefore doesn't meet the full definition of what socialism is: public ownership of the means of production. In conclusion it's not socialism which completely finalizes what Mises had said which is socialism is impossible.
I think this was the hang-up that eventually occurred because the question on whether a global socialist society building a warship is false because it assumes that it is a socialist society. It's not a socialist society, ie. public ownership of the means of production. It would turn into the real scenario that Dondolee, Bostwick, and Marko rightly point out which is the attempt to meet the goal of socialism ends up with a contradiction of the stated goal. It becomes a form of "one central authority" as you put it which isn't the definition of socialism, ie. public or community ownership of the means of production.
I think that's why everybody ended up talking past each other. Because it wasn't socialism building the warship. It was a dictator or "one central authority" willing it. Not the public, as one community with individual actions absent of a central authority, willing it.
Does that make sense?
wilderness:The goal of socialism is public ownership of the means of production.
socialism doesn't have a goal. People have goals and I don't think they are the same for all advocates of Socialism. Some have a fetish with poltiical power and control, others believe the myths about socialism and the fallacies about Capitalism.
wilderness:...what ends up happening is potentially a dictatorship,
Yeah but it doesn't just "end up happening", as if by mistake or something. All forms of Socialism except for Syndicalism are based on a centrally planning board for directing production. I don't know what definitions people like to use for dictatorship but from the individual's point of view, it makes no difference whether the leader of this board is elected by democratic vote or if he is appointed by some other method. All aspects of life must be controlled by this planning board and all of its decrees must be enforced by an apparatus of compulsion. Socialism is inherently totalitarian in nature no matter how much they try to convince you otherwise.
wilderness:It's not a socialist society, ie. public ownership of the means of production.
No, a socialist society is basically what I defined in the first post. The public ownership always implies some form of central authority to direct production on behalf of the people. Nobody, not even the socialists, think that the public will magically direct production by themselves in the absent of a market economy. "Public" and "Society" are just euphemisms for government control used by the socialist to sell their ideas.
wilderness:I think that's why everybody ended up talking past each other. Because it wasn't socialism building the warship.
No, I think you misunderstood. The assumption was indeed that it is Socialism. But I believed I answered that question rather well. I don't want to get into that again.
JonBostwick: I think most people who point to Republican vs Nationalist Spain. But I'm not sure it actually does contradict the correlation between populism and dictators.
That was meant as an answer to this.
wilderness:Even then, wasn't Hitler a product of democratic elections. And Mussolini had the populist behind him which influenced the Italian monarchy to back him. I don't know enough about this era. Could you point out the exception? Cause when I think Fascism, I think of two dictators.
DD5: wilderness:The goal of socialism is public ownership of the means of production. socialism doesn't have a goal. People have goals and I don't think they are the same for all advocates of Socialism. Some have a fetish with poltiical power and control, others believe the myths about socialism and the fallacies about Capitalism.
That's true, but I was trying to talk about individuals who define socialism. Here's Mises definition:
"Under Socialism all the means of production are the property of the community. The community alone... decides... production."
DD5: wilderness:...what ends up happening is potentially a dictatorship, Yeah but it doesn't just "end up happening", as if by mistake or something. All forms of Socialism except for Syndicalism are based on a centrally planning board for directing production. I don't know what definitions people like to use for dictatorship but from the individual's point of view, it makes no difference whether the leader of this board is elected by democratic vote or if he is appointed by some other method. All aspects of life must be controlled by this planning board and all of its decrees must be enforced by an apparatus of compulsion. Socialism is inherently totalitarian in nature no matter how much they try to convince you otherwise.
You're defining political socialism. You're defining what some people who call themselves socialists end up doing in their attempt to establish economic socialism. The economic socialism is what's impossible. The political socialism isn't impossible because any group of people or one person could label themselves "socialists" and then attempt political control. It's the economic socialism that Mises refuted and showed the impossibility of. I think this is the important distinction to understand.
DD5: wilderness:It's not a socialist society, ie. public ownership of the means of production. No, a socialist society is basically what I defined in the first post. The public ownership always implies some form of central authority to direct production on behalf of the people.
No, a socialist society is basically what I defined in the first post. The public ownership always implies some form of central authority to direct production on behalf of the people.
Right. "on behalf of the people" but we know praxeologically that such an attempt to be the authority "on behalf of the people" is impossible. A political socialistic society attempting economic socialism fails. It fails because economic socialism is impossible. It's why those calling themselves socialists and societies calling themselves socialistic are by definition failing to actually be socialistic. They are in name only. Not in actual practice.
DD5:Nobody, not even the socialists, think that the public will magically direct production by themselves in the absent of a market economy. "Public" and "Society" are just euphemisms for government control used by the socialist to sell their ideas.
Not necessarily. As Mises pointed out Marx defined socialism three different ways. (1)He defined it as the public will directing production (what you called "magically"). So yes Marx argued that the magic would happen. (2)He also defined it gov't control. (3)And he defined it as social interrelationships.
Socialists have thought of all three ways. This is beside the point anyways, because say for instance socialists establish it only means gov't control and they rid Marx's other two definitions. It still fails praxeologic. It's the same as any other gov't control which assumes it is doing the 'public's work'. That the gov't is the representation of people's desires and all the gov't does is on behalf of the people. That's a fantasy and you know that as well.
DD5: wilderness:I think that's why everybody ended up talking past each other. Because it wasn't socialism building the warship. No, I think you misunderstood. The assumption was indeed that it is Socialism. But I believed I answered that question rather well. I don't want to get into that again.
Ok. But then I think some people are not noticing the exact distinction between those attempting socialism (political) which is only a means to an end. And that end no matter what, even if gov't controlled and not direct public action which Mises also says isn't important to discover. He says:
"Now it does not matter in the least what particular name is given to the coercive apparatus of the socialistic community (which he goes on to mention Marx's definition or simply "state" or "gov't", etc...).... What is important is the problem of the organization of this socialistic State (Mises explains in this paragraph State and gov't are interchangeable terms) or community."
Then he goes on to explicitly say economic socialism is impossible and describes what it will actually be, not what socialists wish it to be. That's why socialism is a utopian fantasy. It never happens. All the political entities that call themselves 'socialists', all the individual people who call themselves 'socialists' are only chasing a fantasy that is impossible to achieve as an end. Socialist means don't reach the ends they attempt. It's why it fails and is impossible. It would only be possible if all the means socialists attempt actually reached their desired end. Yet they don't. So it's impossible. But that doesn't mean there are not individuals in the world who call themselves socialists or attempt socialism. There are. The point is they can't reach their desired end cause it's impossible.
wilderness: DD5: wilderness:The goal of socialism is public ownership of the means of production. socialism doesn't have a goal. People have goals and I don't think they are the same for all advocates of Socialism. Some have a fetish with poltiical power and control, others believe the myths about socialism and the fallacies about Capitalism. That's true, but I was trying to talk about individuals who define socialism. Here's Mises definition: "Under Socialism all the means of production are the property of the community. The community alone... decides... production."
But it doesn't say that the community can't delegate to a CEO. It leaves open how the community organizes.
JonBostwick:But it doesn't say that the community can't delegate to a CEO.
Is there money still? Are there prices? Is there supply and demand?
wilderness:"Under Socialism all the means of production are the property of the community. The community alone... decides... production."
You have to read on. The community is nothing but a State or its equivalent as Mises repeatedly points out.
wilderness:The political socialism isn't impossible because any group of people or one person could label themselves "socialists" and then attempt political control.
The attempt to actually construct the socialist commonwealth is, of course, not impossible. But since all human action is subject to the laws of economics, the distinction is not a very meaningful one. Obviously, Mises never refuted the possibility of idiots trying to direct production just like the idiot who tries to fly off a cliff by flapping his hands. The impossibility of flying can be proven, but sure, it is possible for him to attempt it.
wilderness:Ok. But then I think some people are not noticing the exact distinction between those attempting socialism (political) which is only a means to an end.
Of course, but in our previous discussion, I think it was clear that we were talking about socialism in the technical sense.
wilderness:The point is they can't reach their desired end cause it's impossible.
Fine, but like I said before, I don't buy the argument about all socialists seeing a common end in socialism.
wilderness: JonBostwick:But it doesn't say that the community can't delegate to a CEO. Is there money still? Are there prices? Is there supply and demand?
The idea where no central authority exists, as when the community doesn't "delegate" power to a director, is Syndicalism and not Socialism. According to Mises, Syndicalistm is basically Anarchy (Not ancap) and it is nonsensical even more then Socialism for even the attempt will be proven to be impossible. If it was attempted, it would lead to Socialism very quickly.
DD5: wilderness:"Under Socialism all the means of production are the property of the community. The community alone... decides... production." You have to read on. The community is nothing but a State or its equivalent as Mises repeatedly points out.
Yes, I quoted that to you in my last post. But I'm talking about economic socialism, not political means to economic ends. I know Mises basis all of these actions on economic laws. This is why a political-economy that tries to attain political-economy ends that are socialist fails. Maybe saying it that way makes it clearer as it points out the economic laws are involved including the economic law that such a political-economy never reaches such ends. The goal is attainable.
DD5: wilderness:Ok. But then I think some people are not noticing the exact distinction between those attempting socialism (political) which is only a means to an end. Of course, but in our previous discussion, I think it was clear that we were talking about socialism in the technical sense.
alright
DD5: wilderness:The point is they can't reach their desired end cause it's impossible. Fine, but like I said before, I don't buy the argument about all socialists seeing a common end in socialism.
Why would they have to see a common end? Their still socialists in the end.