Hello, my name is Reginald and I am a Socialist

http://raganwald.posterous.com/hello-my-name-is-reginald-and-i-am-a-socialis

by raganwald • 16 years ago

90 162 16 years ago

raganwald.posterous.com

gaius8• 16 years ago

Socialists advocate a method of compensation based on individual merit or the amount of labour one contributes to society

The thing is, this makes no sense at all, especially not here on HN, where one of our core assumptions is that people should be compensated on how productive they are, not the hours they put in. Why should anyone care about the amount of labour, as opposed to the value of the end product?

raganwald15• 16 years ago

one of our core assumptions is that people should be compensated on how productive they are, not the hours they put in.

I must have missed that in the FAQ. Where is the list of things we swear we believe when we decide to hang around here?

gaius8• 16 years ago

PG's essays return to this theme again and again.

najirama• 16 years ago

"...here on HN, where one of our core assumptions is..."

Who comprises this 'our' that you so easily reference, and what matter is their assumptions to the actual truth of the OP's thesis?

Cringe-inducing groupthink, in excelsis. Careful you don't lose yourself in pursuit of community.

gaius8• 16 years ago

Really? The onus here is on you to show there is a case for hours or lines of code to set pay, not the value of the end product. Go on, link me to some comments of people advocating that. Or you will have to accept that this really is a common belief.

calibraxis• 16 years ago

Yes, personally while reading the comments, I sometimes just think "This person is using conventional pro-capitalist arguments" and move on. Similar thoughts might occur if I were reading technical communications as a mathematician in Soviet Russia, a developer of early computers for the US government, or engineer of weapons systems under feudalism.

That doesn't necessarily mean I reject those arguments; but it doesn't mean I accept them either. Given the state of the world, it makes sense that the ideology here reflects the capitalist, masculine perspectives in the Californian software industry.

pradocchia• 16 years ago

Sounds you like feel we've already covered this ground thanks to pg's essays and should take the conclusions reached therein as a foundation for discussions on HN: "I thought this was already settled."

I sense a strong belief in Progress and the power of logic to uncover immutable Truth.

gaius8• 16 years ago

I think it is already settled that there are better metrics for calculating compensation than hours worked or lines of code written.

grrrrr• 16 years ago

I don't buy the analogy. Even if you work for a company that fosters what he refers to as a socialist work ethic that company is still operating in a capitalist system, subject to the usual market forces. What he is describing sounds more like a collegiate environment. The nature of software development, and other similar knowledge economy industries, naturally demand a more collaborative & collegiate approach to getting things done, but they are all fundamentally driven by market forces & constraints such as funding & sales.

kscaldef3• 16 years ago

> The nature of software development, and other similar knowledge economy industries, naturally demand a more collaborative & collegiate approach to getting things done, but they are all fundamentally driven by market forces & constraints such as funding & sales.

You have heard of this open source thing, right? I don't think that you can argue that the open source ethos has anything to do with capitalism. In fact, I would say that Stallman's views on software are pretty overtly communist, as they contest the very concept of private ownership of a piece of software.

lzw17• 16 years ago

And yet, without the freedom to won the software you create, you cannot give it away. Open source s capitalst because it is based on the presumption that the creator owns the sotftware and can determine the license to it.

If stall man really believes nobody can own software, then stallman believes that all programmers should be slaves, unable to profit from their own labor.

jerf• 16 years ago

That's actually a significant reason I am a capitalist. A capitalist, free-market system is one in which you are free to set up whatever little organizations you want, and they live and die on their own merits. There is no contradiction in running a highly socialist or even actively communist co-op in a capitalistic society, because it is not part of the capitalism idea that you must run that way from top to bottom.

This is not a conventional definition of socialism or capitalism. I don't have a problem with that per se, since the terms have long since become so fuzzy as to be useless without definition within an essay, but it is a little odd to see you proudly labeling what would more conventionally be called libertarianism or capitalism as "socialism". In this context, I'm not sure this makes any sense.

bstills2• 16 years ago

"it is not part of the capitalism idea that you must run that way from top to bottom"

Well then it wouldn't be capitalism all the way down? It would only be capitalism on the outside, socialism on the inside.

Capitalism is a system in which individuals are rewarded according to what the market will give them. If you don't do that you simply don't have capitalism.

cynicalkane2• 16 years ago

I don't think there really is a popular definition for capitalism. People who use the word always use it to mean what they want it to mean, usually in the context of praising or criticizing capitalist society.

The best definition (in my ever humble opinion) is that capitalism is a society where the means of production live in a free market, which is completely consistent with what the GP said.

datapimp2• 16 years ago

Since Capitalism ultimately depends on the social relationship between owners and workers, where owners purchase the output of worker's activity for less than they sell it to an outside party that desires that output, accumulating and reinvesting the difference ( i.e. Capital ) I think that is a much more important attribute to focus on than the means Capitalist organizations use to determine prices. ( Markets vs State Planning ). The argument you are repeating is a distraction from this central fact.

From the point of view of the 95% who have no Capital, the 95% who only have their ability to exchange labor for currency, life is fundamentally the same. >40 hours a week traded to somebody else for the currency I need to pay for food, shelter, and entertainment. The value I create in that 40 hours is always greater than I was paid, and the difference is always accumulated by a better connected and more socially powerful minority. Markets and State Planning are superfluous details in this equation.

sethg2• 16 years ago

You’re missing the part of capitalism that deals with capital.

If your organization is, say, an automobile company, you can’t just get together with your friends and say “hey, let’s make cars and sell them”. You need a factory building, you need tools, etc., etc., long before you see any cars. The difference between capitalism and socialism, broadly speaking, is the difference between depending on private or public money to finance that initial investment.

philwelch5• 16 years ago

How do socialists propose capital investment is supposed to be done efficiently, if it can't rely upon profit motive on the part of the investors?

lionhearted2• 16 years ago

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.

steveklabnik25• 16 years ago

> 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.

lionhearted2• 16 years ago

> 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?

jbooth2• 16 years ago

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.

Gormo4• 16 years ago

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.

chrismealy• 16 years ago

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

j_baker3• 16 years ago

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).

astine2• 16 years ago

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.' :)

Asa-Nisse• 16 years ago

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

jfager2• 16 years ago

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

gphil• 16 years ago

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

cynicalkane2• 16 years ago

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..

rue2• 16 years ago

> 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.

sethg2• 16 years ago

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?”

zeteo2• 16 years ago

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.

Gormo4• 16 years ago

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.

kungfooguru8• 16 years ago

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.

davidw3• 16 years ago

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.

kungfooguru8• 16 years ago

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

Confusion• 16 years ago

  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.

jakehow4• 16 years ago

"self-organized collectives" are abundant in western capitalism, we usually refer to them as corporations. The terms and agreements between parties in these organizations vary but many fit your ideal.

The philosophical difference between socialism and capitalism, is the willingness to accept violence and coercion as a means to mold society to a specific vision.

ahi• 16 years ago

"The philosophical difference between socialism and capitalism, is the willingness to accept violence and coercion as a means to mold society to a specific vision."

I am fairly certain violence and coercion is orthogonal to socialism v capitalism.

steveklabnik25• 16 years ago

It depends on your definition of violence.

Libertarian socialists and other anarchists would say that private property is violent; it requires that there be societal hierarchy to work, and for few to hold power over many. (oh, and don't forget that their definition of 'private property' is different than yours, because it's more narrow. They separate 'possession' and 'private property' into two different things.)

Captialists could describe the state control of hardcore statist socialism to be violent, as it's also few holding power over the free association of the general public.

jakehow4• 16 years ago

It is very simple. A purely capitalistic society can contain, tolerate, and even encourage totally egalitarian organizations in any form the participants deem prudent. A purely socialist society on the other hand cannot tolerate capitalistic organizations in its midst.

Violence is embedded in the assumption that society can be organized in a socialist manner.

stevenbedrick• 16 years ago

jaw hits floor

Which of those two philosophies do you think accepts "violence and coercion as a means to mold society to a specific version"? From the context, I'm guessing that you're referring to socialism, and thereby claiming that capitalism rejects violence and coercion- my apologies if I'm misunderstanding you.

Assuming that I am interpreting your comment correctly, though, I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you don't know much about the history of the twentieth-century US foreign policy, especially regarding Latin America. We have a long history of using violence and coercion, either directly or via proxies, in order to promote our capitalist philosophies. "Interestingly," we seem to choose to do so primarily in situations where we have significant financial interests... anyway, here's some reading you might find educational:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company#History_in... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_U.S._regime_change_actio...

Note that I'm most definitely not saying that socialism, as a philosophy, has cleaner hands than capitalism. Speaking in terms of political ideologies, the take-home lesson of the abattoir that was the 20th century is that putting one's faith in a political ideology of any kind is asking for trouble.

jakehow4• 16 years ago

Firstly, my comment was qualified with the word 'philosophical' not 'practical'.

Secondly, many people have different understandings of capitalism, and pop culture has continued to remove meaning from the word, which is probably why you are having a hard time understanding my comment.

The examples you cite are perfect examples of the opposite of capitalism: socialized institutions (or the government directly) using violence as a means to an end, either political or economic in nature.

For reference here is the jist from Wikipedia, which leaves a little to be desired but is still pretty decent:

"Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately owned and operated for profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are not made by the government; Profit is distributed to owners who invest in businesses, and wages are paid to workers employed by businesses."

grandalf• 16 years ago

removed :)

steveklabnik25• 16 years ago

No worries, it's an easy distinction to forget, and rarely do people use 'the s word' in America without a ridiculous amount of rhetoric.

steveklabnik25• 16 years ago

I was considering writing a similar post after that thread the other day. I fear for this thread, though. This becomes a touchy subject quickly.

I personally identify with something very close to libertarian socialism myself, so you're not the only one.

raganwald15• 16 years ago

Speaking of PG essays I admire:

http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

steveklabnik25• 16 years ago

Absolutely.

But seriously, this thread has already devolved into criticisms of state socialism, which are legitimate. State socialism sucks. You and I are talking about something else, but will inevitably get drowned out by 'the s-word.'

adw• 16 years ago

I think you'd find quite a bit of support from us Europeans, actually – even the ones, like me, who are probably a bit to the right of you politically. I'm not a card-carrying member of any political party, but the American rhetoric on socialism is just absurd.

(Full disclosure: my sympathies are on the market wing of mainstream European liberalism.)

Socialism as used in Europe means social democracy, means free enterprise with regulation and a robust welfare system, and includes the cooperative movement – and you'd be hard pressed to call the third largest private company in the UK (the John Lewis Partnership: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_Partnership) some kind of entryist plot.

Obama a socialist? Don't make us laugh: he's barely a liberal. In Britain he'd be a Tory...

steveklabnik25• 16 years ago

It's true. I tend to think of HN as being very America-centric, and while I know that's not true, it's easy to forget.

nhebb• 16 years ago

Broadly speaking, in American politics today the term is used to imply the increased scope, reach, and size of government, inevitably followed by an increase in taxes, It's not a textbook definition of socialism, but it boils down an aversion to the state controlling an increasing percentage of our personal wealth.

jakevoytko2• 16 years ago

When you work out the consequences, "Libertarian socialism" is a terrible name for the concept described by Reginald. It feels more like a Capitalist hypothesis:

    Hypothesis:
    A group of workers jointly shouldering the risk and rewards of a venture 
    is more efficient than a "traditional" company.

This is true at small-scale: startups seem to be structured like collectives, and they regularly outperform large companies within a niche. However, large companies never take this structure. That suggests either there's a point where this becomes impractical, or nobody's been crazy enough to try before.

steveklabnik25• 16 years ago

Are you aware of the history of the term 'libertarian?' It was originally used to describe anarchism, which is socialist. Statist and stateless socialism are very different beasts, and the term 'libertarian socialism' has a pretty long history of use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

jakevoytko2• 16 years ago

But despite some of his terms, he's not advocating his views on the level of an entire society. Just at the scale of a single collective or company. He seems fine with the idea of this collective competing and winning within a Capitalist framework, which seems antithetical to much of the article you linked.

lzw17• 16 years ago

Socialism means using violence in the form of the state to deny people the power over their own bodies, or the power to own private property.

Having a state, by definition is incompatible with anarchism.

The whole "libertarians were orginally socialist" idea is just the latest in the strign of socialists attempting to coopt every movement.

That someone thinks you can have anarchism and socialism at the same time boggles the mind. Anarchism means no government while socialism is a form of government incompatible with allowing free will.

bstills2• 16 years ago

"Socialists advocate a method of compensation based on individual merit or the amount of labour one contributes to society"

How do you measure merit and the amount of labour one contributes to society? The only fair way I know of is capitalism where people get to vote with their money on whether or not you are providing value or not.

I would posit that merit is the amount of value you give to another. Minus marketing and any government interference, capitalism rewards individuals for the value they contribute to society.

It is also necessary to separate capitalism from corporatism. The latter is what most people are against when they say that capitalism is evil. There is no such thing as a corporation in terms of capitalism.

There is one flaw in capitalism that I am aware of but I still think it is the best system. That flaw is that it tends to reward those with capital. To have capital is to have an advantage over someone of equal ability. Over time power tends to consolidate into a few select organizations / individuals.

steveklabnik25• 16 years ago

> The latter is what most people are against when they say that capitalism is evil.

Many would, but a libertarian socialist would reject capitalism outright as being hierarchical.

> Over time power tends to consolidate into a few select organizations / individuals.

Spot on.

_delirium2• 16 years ago

> Minus marketing and any government interference, capitalism rewards individuals for the value they contribute to society.

I suppose I don't buy this as an a priori equality. One problem is that when there are very large flows of capital, one can often make more money by skimming very small amounts off the top, than by creating new things. That's one reason finance is a better route to wealth than tech startups, even though tech startups create a lot more value for society: because when hundreds of billions of dollars are moving around, you only need to find a way to pocket a very small amount of it to get fabulously wealthy. More generally, rent-seeking, i.e. maneuvering yourself into a position where you can be sort of a private-sector version of the taxman, is a viable way to make money.

Plus, "minus marketing" is a pretty big caveat. It's quite possible to be successful in a "black-hat capitalist" sort of way, by not creating products that contribute to society, but instead by swindling society out of its money by getting people to buy your crap (even in tech, there's a whole affiliate-marketing underworld of tricking people into buying shitty ebooks). And, to pick a third problem, the economy is a rather complex dynamical system, and like many dynamical systems, is not driven purely by fundamentals (real supply/demand), but also by feedback loops and attractors within the system. So sometimes you get some really weird ways of making money that have nothing to do with anyone providing value to anyone else, but have more to do with asset bubbles and debt spirals and other such market patterns.

Not that markets don't often work, and might work even better without the government propping up the corporate form. But I certainly don't think we can a priori say that money transfers are a direct measure of value. I mean, we'd live in a pretty coincidentally amazing universe if it just happened that the economy, this very complex dynamical system that does not care about human concerns like "value" or "society" or "ethics", happened to end up 100% aligning with them. I think instead it's an open question when they align and when they don't, and if there's anything we can do to make markets align with value-to-society better.

forgottenpaswrd3• 16 years ago

I think you put it very clear: 1)The good about capitalism is that it rewards high squiled-hard workers individuals fairly based on objective results, not on ideology and prejudices(subjective) like socialism.

2)The bad is that "everybody love their children, family and friends". That means those near those highly successful people get unfair advantage(nepotism).

Given that no political system has been able to improve (2)(who were those that had the privileges to cruise the Volga, feed-educate better their children in SU but communist party members? who has the power and the companies in P.R.C today but comunist party members?) I prefer capitalism.

astine2• 16 years ago

"That isn't socialism, but boy does it feel like workers being more efficient when they seize the means of production—the compiler—rather than being coerced or exploited."

If you're interested in the notion of putting the means of production in the hands of the workers, you might be interested in some of the works of G. K. Chesterton and Hilair Belloc when they discuss what they called 'Distributism.' They're not full of much practical advice but they do provide an ideological alternative to the all or nothing ideologies of Socialism and Free-Market Capitalism.

forgottenpaswrd3• 16 years ago

"I don't like the idea of anyone forcing me to accept socialism"

Haha, so you are not socialist at all!!

Socialist is forcing others to accept socialist, in fact is forcing (other)individuals to give money to their "social causes", that could be different from those individuals have.

Is not asking politely: would you mind giving part of your money to this poor people so they can study?

No, it is taking by force his money if he doesn't want to, and consider it "a right". As my grandpa who lived in soviet rusia said when I asked what is socialism, he said: It is being generous with other people's money.

If you accept individual freedoms to choose, you are not socialist, not more that anybody else here.

steveklabnik25• 16 years ago

You're operating under a very narrow, incorrect definition of socialism.

forgottenpaswrd3• 16 years ago

Narrow? No, is broad. It applies to every socialism in existence, planning and managing others resources, not your own.

A private socialism is not a socialism at all, because you need a society to comply.

Maybe you could give me a better definition.

dood• 16 years ago

Capitalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Anarchism, Conservatism, etc... these labels are now so confused and bereft of concrete meaning that their use is largely counterproductive.

If you want to say something political, say it, don't stick a label on your forehead.

lzw17• 16 years ago

These labels are one bereft of meaning because socialists arevcosntantly attempting to coopt them. They havev even cooped the republican party.

Libertarian means you do not believe in the initiation of force. This is incompatible with socialism which, it's core, requires the use of force to make people live a certain way.

The term libertarian has clear meaning, and all of the others will, so long as we do not tolerate their misuse and call it out when they are misused.

raganwald15• 16 years ago

This is incompatible with socialism which, it's core, requires the use of force to make people live a certain way.

You can't really slip that in like everyone agrees it's a fact. Where does it say that Socialism requires force? The last few anarchists I spoke to describe capitalism as requiring force, because you need to enforce the notion of the ownership of things.

For example, what force is required to copy a movie? The force is all on the side of lawyers and policemen arresting people to compel them to treat a very, very long number as property.

RyanMcGreal• 16 years ago

Sounds a bit like this: http://www.thetake.org/

rick8882• 16 years ago

"That isn't socialism, but boy does it feel like workers being more efficient when they seize the means of production—the compiler—rather than being coerced or exploited."

How are workers being "exploited" just based on the fact that they working for someone else? We all have choices in this world. If you feel you aren't getting paid enough, leave.

"They argue that this creates an unequal society that fails to provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potential."

If I have more money than you, it instantly makes our opportunities "unequal". This is the problem with socialism. It creates "equality" by limiting everyone's success. This works well for people that aren't interested in succeeding. I think of it like those group projects in school where 2 people of 5 would get stuck doing all the work, while the rest took the same amount of credit.

"I have no idea if the folks laid off from auto-makers want to do that, but I do know that I and many of the programmers I know seem happy with the idea of working in small teams in a collaborative and egalitarian manner"

I see people talking about this every couple of years. If you really want to start something like this, don't talk about it, do it. Many people in history have tried exactly what you are proposing and this crazy thing called human nature gets in the way every time.

The idea of a group owned collaborative sounds great on paper, until you actually attempt to do it. Who decides how much each person gets paid? If it's based on performance, what kind of performance? How many widgets or made?

You mentioned a "co-operative workers' councils". How is this any different than a president/ceo of the company? These "councils" will have more power over the regular workers, so it doesn't really make everyone "equal".

I've worked at a few companies that were run by committee. Even small decisions were very painful to make.

raganwald15• 16 years ago

Are you presenting this as an argument with my article? I am confused, as you seem to be arguing most of the time with other people's words and not my own.

I will respond to one thing you wrote, That does not mean I agree with or even understand anything else in your comment.

How are workers being "exploited" just based on the fact that they working for someone else? We all have choices in this world. If you feel you aren't getting paid enough, leave.

Is exploitation incompatible with freedom? You seem to be saying that exploitation does not exist since people appear to have choices.

That isn't my understanding of what the word "exploitation" means. If I'm wrong, please suggest the word that describes what I am thinking, and I'll update the essay.

rick8882• 16 years ago

"Are you presenting this as an argument with my article? I am confused, as you seem to be arguing most of the time with other people's words and not my own."

You seem to like to add other people's words in your article as to convey a certain message. When I argue against that message, you tell me that you are confused.

If you don't want anything to do with the thoughts you quoted, why put them there at all? You should stand by your opinions.

"Is exploitation incompatible with freedom? You seem to be saying that exploitation does not exist since people appear to have choices."

No. Some people are truly exploited. You laid it out there as a blanked statement. As if everyone is exploited in the current system.

motters• 16 years ago

My own 2p worth is that these notions of socialism or capitalism or liberalism are 19th/20th century inventions, and that the sorts of issues which are going to be arising in future are not going to fit well into any of these existing boxes. Probably it's not a good idea to become too fixated upon these ideologies from the past. As evidence I'd cite the declining public interest in party politics and the rise of single issue pressure groups.

Also, Americans often confuse socialism for communism, and don't realize that more moderate non-tyrannical centre left forms of socialism are possible, with plenty of examples existing in Europe.

lzw17• 16 years ago

It is easy to assume that your opponents are ignorant, but i can speak pretty clearly to this point-- even the least aware and educated Americans recognize that european socialism, while it didn't become as tyrannical as communist states, still results in more government control, and lower economic growth, than the comparatively less socialist USA.

raganwald15• 16 years ago

Since people like to argue definitions, here's something to chalk on the board at the coffee house:

GIVEN: Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism, and sometimes left libertarianism) is a group of political philosophies which promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic, stateless society without private property in the means of production.

RESOLVED: Belief in the abolition of software patents and the use of FOSS software to create start-ups is a Libertarian Socialist view.

lzw17• 16 years ago

How can you have a society without private property if you don't have a state to take the property away from people and to enslave them?

Your system would end the Knute two people decided to organize a venture for profit, or to keep a stick they found on the beach.

You need an all seeing state to take that stick from them and keep them destitute.

raganwald15• 16 years ago

You are talking about atoms. But software is made of bits. Could it be that the ideas that work well for atoms fall down in a Universe of bits?

datapimp2• 16 years ago

You sound more like a traditional Anarchist. Industrial Worker of the World type than a Socialist.

kungfooguru8• 16 years ago

Great to read this. I too am a socialist and frequent Hacker News and work in startups. I'm a member of the International Socialist Organization, http://socialistworker.org/, if you happen to be in the US and interested in a group and not yet part of one.

I see you ended up getting people to argue definitions when they don't understand them anyway :).

Like lionhearted, "means of production by violence". Violence is only necessary when those with the real rights to the means of production (the wealth they created) are attacked... So no, that is not part of Marx's theory.

Marxist brand socialism is the healthiest place to be if you are for freedom and the end of oppression!

It is sad how little people care to learn of Marxism, instead happily believe the lies they are told.

lzw17• 16 years ago

Me and my friends make a startup, we make lots of money. You want to tax it? Do you want to force us to hire employes on terms that you dictate?

These are sincere questions-- what effect would your socialist system have on our little voluntary startup? If the answer is none, how is it different from capitalism? What if we got big?

If you want to force us to hire certain people, pay them a certain amount, or prevent us from getting big-- all policies advocated by various socialist organizations-- how is this not an end of freedom and oppression?

Meanwhile I don't care if you form a collective, and you have whatever socialist policies in your collective, so long as all the participants are voluntary.

I've yet to meet a socialist or a socialist organization that would extend the same courtesy.

Because letting people be free from oppression means letting them pool capital, which is generally a problem for socialists, isn't it?

kungfooguru8• 16 years ago

First let me argue not as a socialist but pretending I'm a liberal. Are you saying that when you make a startup and sell a product you gain nothing from public services during this time? There is no reason for you to be taxed to provide those services?

There will be no 'startups' in the sense you think of, meaning dealing with capital. Decisions of production will be done democratically in communities.

If you want to think of yourself as an artisan that could be argued that you could still have your "startup". But you will not be collecting capital from investors and enslaving workers to a wage.

It is a very different way of thinking and living and can be hard to grasp. But so was capitalism and capitalism was a very progressive movement in its beginning. But it runs its course as it destroys the planet and human interaction and continues to concentrate more and more wealth in fewer and fewer hands.

kungfooguru8• 16 years ago

Sad to see Hacker News people are just as ignorant on socialism and capitalism as say... Diggers for example, or watchers of CNN/MSNBC/FOX.

rue2• 16 years ago

He really should have made it about definitions since more than half of the commenters here seem to have no idea what communism is and, thereby, misunderstand socialism (as defined by Reginald) and Socialism (as defined by Marx).

Communism <> capitalism. Democracy <> oligarchy. Freedom <> oppression.

tallpapab• 16 years ago

Thanks for posting. Now I don't feel so lonely.

warmfuzzykitten• 16 years ago

Can't believe no one else responded: "Hello, Reginald!!"

Hello, my name is Reginald and I am a Socialist

Related Stories