I'm a little out of the loop, why is a social democratic welfare state not socialism?
this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2025
428 points (93.9% liked)
The Democratic People's™ Republic of Tankiejerk
697 readers
805 users here now
Dunking on Tankies from a leftist, anti-capitalist perspective.
Rules:
- Be civil and no bigotry of any kind.
- No tankies or right-wingers. Liberals are allowed so long as they are aware of this
- No genocide denial
We allow posts about tankie behavior even off fedi, shitposts, and rational, leftist discussion. For a more general community [email protected] is recommended.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Social democratic welfare states re-distribute some of the surplus value extracted from the labor of workers back to them, but the fundamental functioning of the economy remains decision-making in firms owned and run by capitalist investors rather than workers.
That's fair, but if the workers regulate the companies, control supply via subsidies and taxation, and cap the wealth of the investors then doesn't it have the exact same effect as if a government office made all the business decisions while also allotting the freedom of the workers to create or retire businesses?
Pretty big but, though, I admit it would be asking a lot to accomplish that from the perspective of the world we live in.
That’s fair, but if the workers regulate the companies, control supply via subsidies and taxation, and cap the wealth of the investors then doesn’t it have the exact same effect as if a government office made all the business decisions while also allotting the freedom of the workers to create or retire businesses?
Not really - I feel like I should address this in parts, though it's all one statement and I feel like it needed to be denied as a whole statement first.
That’s fair, but if the workers regulate the companies, control supply via subsidies and taxation, and cap the wealth of the investors
This is the ideal functioning of a social democratic welfare state. We... do not really have a fully ideally functioning social democratic welfare state right now (speaking even outside of the US, because we're pretty fucked here), but this is a fundamentally good, or at least better, goal to aim for than our current situation.
then doesn’t it have the exact same effect as if a government office made all the business decisions
No, it does not. What you've proposed, as a social democratic welfare state, results in a government which restricts and encourages economic decisions which it believes will be in the best interest of the workers. The final decision-making power resides with independent firms mostly run by capitalist investors, even if their decisions are restricted by regulations, and invariably, the decision made within those restrictions will be the one which most benefits (or which the investors perceive as most-benefitting) the capitalist investors, not the workers, and not the firm.
What you describe is probably most comparable to French dirigisme
while also allotting the freedom of the workers to create or retire businesses?
This is a common misconception about socialism, or at least many forms of socialism. Under socialism, a worker running a business is not necessarily restricted - what is restricted is who, beyond the worker, can create or retire a business.
Under the loosest definition of socialism, or, if one prefers the more stringent definition of socialism as beyond simply modernist anti-capitalism, under generally anti-capitalist ideals, there is nothing preventing a worker from starting a business and selling their labor.
Where things get fuzzy is ownership of capital. The strictest socialists would say that all ownership of capital is anti-socialist - down to tools being communally shared. This is an extreme position, however. Most socialists accept that some amount of workers owning the tools they themselves use (or, for some who are insistent about ownership being verboten, workers having 'exclusive rights to dictate the usage of their tools as long as the tools are in use by them') is acceptable - what is important is that capital is not a tool to leverage control over others, but a tool to enable one's own labor.
At its absolute loosest, a generalized anti-capitalism, a worker would be able to run a business, hire workers, buy and sell capital on behalf of the firm, etc, in a mostly recognizable way, even if his work was done on what we might regard as an executive level. The difference would be that the capital would belong to the firm he ran - the worker could not simply cash out and leave the other workers high and dry because it's 'his' business. Nor would there be outside non-worker investors.
This is considered by many socialists to be insufficient to qualify as socialism, and many would insist further that a firm must include workers as a fundamental and major part of the decision-making process to be socialists - but even then, again, nothing in most of these conceptions stops a worker from starting a business and hiring workers. It's simply that once other workers are involved, they must be involved in decision-making, in some form - whether by electing who runs the firm, or by worker-investor schemes, or by votes on major decisions.
There are a lot of conceptions of socialism out there, and a lot of different proposals for what we should be working for. About the only point of agreement is that capitalism is not the way forward - that investor-driven market economies have results which follow the iron law of institutions - decisions benefit the decision-makers, not the firms, and certainly not the workers.
This is a common misconception about socialism, or at least many forms of socialism. Under socialism, a worker running a business is not necessarily restricted - what is restricted is who, beyond the worker, can create or retire a business.
That statement doesn't really parse. They're either able to create a business or they are not. They're either able to put goods onto an exchange market or fill requests even beyond or far below requested amounts, or they're not. You will absolutely have people who start a business and make others do the work so long as the government does not directly manage the business, unless you completely disregard human nature which was already stretched pretty thin in the assumption that a worker owned government and by extension means of production were incorruptible.
That statement doesn’t really parse. They’re either able to create a business or they are not. They’re either able to put goods onto an exchange market or fill requests even beyond or far below requested amounts, or they’re not.
I think you're misreading the statement. The statement is trying to say that workers can create businesses. In start-up businesses, there very often (though not always) is no difference between the founders and the workers - and management work is work, mind you.
You will absolutely have people who start a business and make others do the work so long as the government does not directly manage the business,
That's just the thing - as mentioned here, the two, broadly speaking, ways that socialism addresses this would be either:
-
The worker who started the firm does not have private ownership of the firm's capital (and there are no outside investors which have ownership or part-ownership of the firm's capital); if he is the only worker, the difference is purely formal, but if he is not the only worker, he does not have the right to, say, sell everything the firm has and take the proceeds to his bank account, the way a modern private company could. The worker who started the firm, in this case, would be in a position akin to a public corporation in which the executive(s) must answer to shareholders for financial decisions - only instead of shareholders, it's the firm's workers. Even if he sold the firm's capital, the firm itself would still own the proceeds of the sales, and he could not simply regard it as 'his' and write it down on his personal income tax form as liquidation of capital gains.
-
The worker who started the firm does not have exclusive executive control over the firm unless he is the only worker in the firm.
unless you completely disregard human nature which was already stretched pretty thin in the assumption that a worker owned government were incorruptible.
It's not about corruption. Corruption isn't even in the conversation here.
Genuinely curious about the standard by which you evaluate whether the means of production are collectively owned. For example, one person might say that it looks like a government, representing all workers on a national scale and making decisions based on votes or elected representatives, owning all the means of production. Another person might say it looks like each industry being controlled by a union representing the workers in said industry. A third could say that it means anytime a person operates a machine, they own it and can decide what to do with it, until they stop using it.
Is there any concievable physical reality in which it would be impossible to reasonably argue that the workers do not collectively control the means of production, because of a disagreement on which means of production should be owned by which workers and in what form? It seems like a very vague definition when you start looking beyond slogans into what it actually looks like.
For example, one person might say that it looks like a government, representing all workers on a national scale and making decisions based on votes or elected representatives, owning all the means of production.
That might be relevant if the USSR was actually democratic.
Is there any physical reality in which it would be impossible to reasonably argue that the workers do not collectively control the means of production, because of a disagreement on which means of production should be owned by which workers? It seems like a very vague definition when you start looking beyond slogans into what it actually looks like.
"Does socialism really MEAN anything? 
"
Really showing the libs, I see.
That might be relevant if the USSR was actually democratic.
Are bourgeoisie liberal states democratic? Curious your thoughts.
Are bourgeoisie liberal states democratic? Curious your thoughts.
To varying degrees. Certainly more than the USSR. Not really sure why anyone thinks "You can vote for the Party Approved candidate or not vote" is a real vote, other than a deep desire to throat authoritarian boots.
“You can vote for the Party Approved candidate or not vote”
I don't really think its functionally different in the USA (or other liberal states). Democrats and Republicans are quite literally "Party Approved Candidates". The presence of independents is incidental, and the USSR had independents in its parliament as well. This is why I view both the USA and USSR as "democratic", but I would view neither as socialist.
I don’t really think its functionally different in the USA (or other liberal states). Democrats and Republicans are quite literally “Party Approved Candidates”.
Independents run in the US all the time. Democrats and Republicans both have party primaries, in which the 'party-approved' candidates are voted for and ran. I don't even remember the last time there was an uncontested national election.
The presence of independents is incidental,
Why? Because it's inconvenient to the point?
and the USSR had independents in its parliament as well.
The 'independents' were party-approved, and almost always elected uncontested as well. Contested elections, to my memory, were not even allowed between independents and Communist candidates until 8 fucking 9.
This is why I view both the USA and USSR as “democratic”, but I would view neither as socialist.
Neither the US nor the USSR are socialist, but the USA is much more democratic than the USSR. Fuck's sake, 19th century Britain was more democratic than the USSR, and 19th century Britain was not very fucking democratic.
What does it even mean to own the means of production? How are decisions made? Big decisions can go to a vote, but what about small ones? I don't see how any organization can function without some kind of hierarchy. But the way you describe socialism implies that hierarchy can't coexist with socialism.
Maybe the pirate ship system would work well.
Every man got the same share except the captain (2x) and quartermaster (1.5x) and the doctor (1.5x) any of that position can be replaced anytime by a vote
Aye, this be a fittin' trajectory for ye politics
Maybe the base pay the same for everyone but and only do a multiplies on profit sharing.
The socialist democratically owned company would still elect a CEO or something like it to make those kinds of decisions, and if they don't make good decisions they can be recalled by the employees to be replaced with someone else. The way I look at it it would be like how companies are currently but with all employees owning shares of the company rather then outside investors or the owner of the company. Atleast that's how I interpret it but there's probably a million different ways you could set it up while still having it be much more democratic then the modern structure.
That is capitalism
"Capitalism is when there's management"?
Many of the contradictions and crises of Capitalism are still present even under worker coop models in a market economy. Surplus value is still extracted, that money must be reinvested in the business to remain competitive. Meaning the Tendency of The Rate of Profit to Fall Remains, meaning capitalist crises remain. Imperialist incentives remain, and a worker coop nation-state would be equally imperialist as one with private corporations.
Many of the contradictions and crises of Capitalism are still present even under worker coop models in a market economy. Surplus value is still extracted, that money must be reinvested in the business to remain competitive.
Other than the end-state of communism, a stateless, moneyless society, I'm curious as to what you think counts as 'not capitalist'?
Tendency of The Rate of Profit to Fall
Lord.
You run an explicitly anti-capitalist community and don't believe in the TRPF?
Other than the end-state of communism, a stateless, moneyless society, I’m curious as to what you think counts as ‘not capitalist’?
I think socialism requires an explicitly anti-nationalist character and the elimination of the commodity form. This looks like production with quotas (use-value), probably labor vouchers (but its not a requirement) and some form of worker ownership, like workers councils.
You run an explicitly anti-capitalist community and don’t believe in the TRPF?
Marx himself regard the tendency of the rate of profit to fall as an incomplete aspect of his theories. It's highly contested, and ultimately, while important to 'scientific socialism' conceptions of why capitalism must fall, is neither explanation nor justification for those of us who believe that capitalism should fall, but will not necessarily do so of its own inherent contradictions.
Marx was a brilliant theorist, and we are all deeply indebted to his contributions to socialist thought - that's not the same as thinking that every idea he put forward, with the limited evidence available to him, and him operating as a positive trailblazer in the 19th century as an exile in a deeply hostile society, was absolutely incontrovertibly correct.
I think socialism requires an explicitly anti-nationalist character and the elimination of the commodity form. This looks like production with quotas (use-value), probably labor vouchers (but its not a requirement) and some form of worker ownership, like workers-councils.
I mean, again, though, that looks to me more like the end-state of communism. If that's all you're willing to accept as non-capitalist, that's fine, I suppose, but that's a very high bar to clear, and many want clearer intermediate steps which will create the conditions to implement that.
Upvoted for having a reasonable conversation, btw, this is what left discourse is for
i mean, lenin era USSR might be socialist probably closer to communism though, but it was most definitely NOT socialist under stalin or communist.
Lenin's 'war communism' was little more than state-sponsored looting (which, to be fair, is far from unusual in times of crisis; it is not, however, much of an innovation or a path to socialism); while the NEP was the exact social democratic reformism that the Bolsheviks were supposedly against, only without the pesky 'democracy' bit the SRs liked.
the biggest difference was the war
Similarly:
Is every good or service-providing entity privately owned? No? Then it's not capitalism.
Is the fire department part of the government (i.e. worker-owned), or is it a private entity? Do you have pinkertons or police? Are there soldiers, or are the armed forces entirely mercenaries? Are roads privately owned? When people get old and need some kind of regular monthly payment, does that payment come exclusively from private insurance policies and/or investments, or are the payments provided by fellow workers in the form of a government benefit?
Every modern economy is a mixed system involving some capitalist elements and some socialist elements.
That's ot what the word capitalism means. Like, not even close.
Socialism is generally considered to be the workers owning the means of production.
Welfare, infrastrucutre, and public services are not means of production, even if you think that the government is a workers' state (and I can think of no major current governments which are legitimately workers' states).
Socialism is not simply when the government or community does or owns things in general, but the core means of generating economic output.
The meme said, "the means of production." It did not say, "every, single means of production."
The OP could have meant anything from workers electing their CEOs in 51% of the steel mills, smelteries, oil rigs, cinemas, restaurants, etc. all the way up to 100% like you decided to assume.
But honestly, it makes very little sense to read 100% into this, especially with your wording of "good or service-providing entity".
A hell of a lot of "good or service-providing entities" are sole proprietorships, which are in a blurry gray area between private ownership and cooperative ownership. On the one hand, many capitalists started out as sole proprietors. On the other hand, by owning one's own means of production, a sole proprietor is both worker and owner, fitting perfectly in the definition of socialism. In fact, I would argue that the sole proprietor doesn't really become a socialist or a capitalist until another worker joins the business and it becomes a cooperative or a private company. Until then, the distinction is meaningless.
It is private in case you didnt know (police) It is just not on paper
No True Scotsman
No True Scotsman
I love how people use the term to mean "Words cannot have definitions", which isn't what the fallacy means at all.
But I bet it makes them feel real smart for a few seconds when they incorrectly use the term.
Lol yeah. No True Scotsman is against shifting/arbitrary definitions, but your definition of socialism here is rigid and clear.
This is an extremely important point you just made! Pure socialism is impossible for humanity due to the individuals that are so easily corruptible. We need a system similar to socialism, capitalism, AND communism, that takes the best of all of them, abandones the worst, and compensates properly for human nature. Human nature is why everything fails, not the theoretical systems themselves. Theoretically they work.
Colloquial definitions of socialism, capitalism, and communism differ strongly from the proper usage of the terms.
I would actually argue that money -- and not human nature -- is the point of failure. To be more specific, money's capacity for growth.
The second you have the growth associated with a store of value (the ability to spend $100 and get back $110), you have the capacity for different piles of value to grow at different rates (depending on things like luck, ruthlessness, and cleverness) without being limited by a single human's ability to labor.
And when you have different piles of money growing at different rates with no upper limit, you have some growing so fast that they become cancerous, sucking the resources out of the entire system.
It's both better and worse having this problem than having one of human nature. Worse because growth is an even more universal part of nature than greed. (So we can't get rid of it.) Better because it's something we are intimately familiar with trying to contain. We have surgeries for rapid cellular growths. We have antibiotics for rapid bacterial growths. We have entire forestry organizations that release hunting licenses dedicated to containing rapid deer population growth.
Growth is an incredibly simple, two-dimensional graph, and it's easy to tell when we're controlling a growth vs succumbing to it.
The second you have the growth associated with a store of value (the ability to spend $100 and get back $110), you have the capacity for different piles of value to grow at different rates (depending on things like luck, ruthlessness, and cleverness) without being limited by a single human’s ability to labor.
That's all material value, though?
view more: next ›