12 ms·

Why is socialism a top-down technocratic solution? What is top-down about the abolition of private property and workers owning the means of production? Also, w

by duairc 13y ago

Why is socialism a top-down technocratic solution? What is top-down about the abolition of private property and workers owning the means of production? Also, what is “human thriving”? I find that capitalists use vague terms like this to mean “good”, and when you push them for a definition, they give you a contrived one which makes capitalism look good, but no satisfying justification or explanation for why this is should be what the structure of society should be optimised for.

nickff 13y ago
Abolition of property rights is usually down through coercive means by some agent of the state, hence it is top-down. "Human thriving" can be defined any number of ways, including wealth, health, liberty (positive or negative), freedom, happiness, environmental factors, etc. Most capitalists define thriving as improvement in some or all of these areas. You are correct that a vague definition of "thriving" can be self-serving, but it is hard to find any factor which socialist countries have made more progress in than less socialist countries. Even a socialist country (i.e. China or India) which frees its markets and creates property rights sees a substantial gain in the rate of improvement of the lives of its citizens in almost every aspect.
- duairc 13y ago
  > Abolition of property rights is usually down through coercive means by some agent of the state, hence it is top-down. No it's not? Property rights themselves can only be enforced through some agent of the state, hence they are top down. Abolition of private property means abolition of the state. I mentioned this in another post in this thread, but take the example of a house you rent from a landlord. Under capitalism, it's not your house, even though you use it. It's the landlord's, because ultimately the landlord can use the coercive power of the state to remove you if you stop paying rent. If you abolish the state, then it simply becomes your house, and the landlord can no longer claim ownership over that which they do not use.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > If you abolish the state, then it simply becomes your house, and the landlord can no longer claim ownership over that which they do not use. If you abolish the state, anyone can claim ownership over anything they want, they'll just have to muster their own force to enforce the claim since there is no state to impose force on behalf of any claimant.
    - scarmig 13y ago
      This isn't borne out, though, by actual experience. Plenty of economic goods are not secured by codified property rights, defined and enforced from above. Communities are able to self-organize to define a reasonable set of behavioral norms. Local knowledge can be leveraged to generate better outcomes, and locality allows different communities to experiment with what actually works best, making the system as a whole more fault tolerant. See the work of Elinor Ostrom for several deeply investigated examples of this kind of organizing.
      - ameister14 13y ago
        It actually is. While plenty of economic goods may not be secured by codified property rights and instead are secured through the application of community norms, when those norms are challenged community does have to apply force. See: the majority of human history, particularly Pythagoras' attempt at community, every war for conquest, anarchic systems created in early Iceland/Scandinavia, normal people's experiences with bullies, etc.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > This isn't borne out, though, by actual experience. Yes, actually, the fact that, in the absence of a state (and, in fact, even in the presence of a de jure state but the absence of an effective state), people are free to claim whatever, but their ability to enforce a claim is dependent on their ability to muster force to press it is well established by experience. > Plenty of economic goods are not secured by codified property rights, defined and enforced from above. I don't disagree with that, but its not relevant to anything I said. > Communities are able to self-organize to define a reasonable set of behavioral norms. Again, I don't disagree (in fact, that's what a democratic state is.) > Local knowledge can be leveraged to generate better outcomes, and locality allows different communities to experiment with what actually works best, making the system as a whole more fault tolerant. And, yet again, I don't necessarily disagree with that in general (though I do think it is an overgeneralization), and, again, it doesn't contradict anything I said. >
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Abolition of property rights is usually down through coercive means by some agent of the state, hence it is top-down. Creation of property rights is always done through coercive means by the State. In the absence of such action, there are no property rights.
  - nickff 13y ago
    This is not necessarily the case, and depends on your view of rights. If you believe in natural, self evident rights, (such as owning one's self,) then property rights can be derived in a number of ways. This is only one example, as there are a number of ways to establish property rights, some of which involve state coercion, and some of which do not.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > If you believe in natural, self evident rights, (such as owning one's self,) then property rights can be derived in a number of ways. Whether or not you believe in such rights, they are different kind of thing than legal rights and (notably) cannot be abolished. Confusing natural (i.e., moral) rights and legal rights is the fallacy of equivocation (and is equivalent to conflating a fact proposition with a value proposition.) Creation of legal property rights is always a top-down action by the State. It may be justified by a belief in certain inherent, unalterable moral rights (as, equally, can the abolition of legal property rights -- which is simply the State declining to continue to impose coercive means to uphold certain property rights), but that doesn't change that the mechanism by which they imposed is top-down, coercive action by the State.
      - nickff 13y ago
        I did not confuse anything, you left the type of right undefined. I assumed that the undefined right could be either moral or legal, whereas you interpret "right" to mean "legal right" unless explicitly stated otherwise. This has been an unfortunate misunderstanding.
        13y ago
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
thatswrong0 13y ago
> What is top-down about the abolition of private property and workers owning the means of production? What isn't? How could you get individuals to give up their property without the use of force, which would most likely come from the state?
- jahaja 13y ago
  I would say that the enforcement of private property is what requires the top-down approach. Not the abolishment of private property. e.g: If I would build my house at someones former vast private property (land). The property owner would somehow have to enforce he's or her's private property. Today this is done through the state.
  - crusso 13y ago
    And without the state I couldn't just have a few of my employees or friends burn your house down? This whole argument of whether property rights or lack of property rights is due to a State is fundamentally misguided. The State is just force, and whether that force creates property rights or destroys common understanding of property rights depends upon how that force is applied.
    - jahaja 13y ago
      Of course. I agree with you, hence the "Today" in the last sentence. Tomorrow it might be other kinds of states or similar entities. The first sentence was however badly formulated. So it's true that a stateless society would need to defend against groups of thugs or similar just as we do today. This would probably be done in a decentralized manner rather than a paid centralized institution like today. The idea is to build a society that people would want to defend. So hopefully people would organise against thugs that claim private property rights, or also risk being exposed to them themselves.
- duairc 13y ago
  You have it completely backwards. Private property itself can't exist without the use of force and the state. If you abolish the state, you abolish private property. Let's say you're renting a house from some landlord. You live in this house, so it should be yours, right? The landlord already has another house that they live in. But it's not yours, it's the landlord's. Why is it the landlord's? Because if you stop paying rent, they can kick you out. How? Ultimately, by using the force of the state to remove you. If you get abolish private property (i.e., the state), then there is no “force” that makes the house the landlord's. It simply becomes your house. Abolishing private property doesn't mean getting individuals to “give up” their property, it means people can no longer use force to claim ownership over that which they do not use.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> What is top-down about the abolition of private property and workers owning the means of production? Inherently? Nothing. But that's the goal, and socialism is more than the goal, its the means: if you do that through the State, its "socialism". If you do part or all of it within a community by non-state means, its something else (anarcho-syndicalism, for instance.) Since capitalist states tend to impose structural disincentives or barriers to effectively altering relationships in this way, it may in practice to make changes through the State to achieve to goals even if those seeking them are not in favor of State action as an ideal (e.g., you can, within a community subject to a State with a capitalist view of property rights, perhaps restrict the impact of private property rights between members of the group, e.g., by contract, but you cannot force the State to withdraw from imposing certain models of property without exercising power through the State to make the change.)
JackFr 13y ago
It's top-down, because to engage in any endeavor of size requires some sort of organization 1) to actually direct the organization and 2) to amass the necessary physical capital necessary for the enterprise. Capitalism solves those two problems through the modern corporation which by selling tradeable claims on the profits (through shares) and the owners (shareholders) through an elected board hiring of directors hiring managers. Other systems which we have seen through history solve those problems through taxation and either appointment from the political class or professional bureaucracy. That is why it's top down. (While the latter system may seem appealing, it's feedback and informational characteristics are even worse than that for capitalist managers.)

by duairc 13y ago

nickff 13y ago

Abolition of property rights is usually down through coercive means by some agent of the state, hence it is top-down. "Human thriving" can be defined any number of ways, including wealth, health, liberty (positive or negative), freedom, happiness, environmental factors, etc. Most capitalists define thriving as improvement in some or all of these areas. You are correct that a vague definition of "thriving" can be self-serving, but it is hard to find any factor which socialist countries have made more progress in than less socialist countries. Even a socialist country (i.e. China or India) which frees its markets and creates property rights sees a substantial gain in the rate of improvement of the lives of its citizens in almost every aspect.

duairc 13y ago
> Abolition of property rights is usually down through coercive means by some agent of the state, hence it is top-down. No it's not? Property rights themselves can only be enforced through some agent of the state, hence they are top down. Abolition of private property means abolition of the state. I mentioned this in another post in this thread, but take the example of a house you rent from a landlord. Under capitalism, it's not your house, even though you use it. It's the landlord's, because ultimately the landlord can use the coercive power of the state to remove you if you stop paying rent. If you abolish the state, then it simply becomes your house, and the landlord can no longer claim ownership over that which they do not use.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > If you abolish the state, then it simply becomes your house, and the landlord can no longer claim ownership over that which they do not use. If you abolish the state, anyone can claim ownership over anything they want, they'll just have to muster their own force to enforce the claim since there is no state to impose force on behalf of any claimant.
  - scarmig 13y ago
    This isn't borne out, though, by actual experience. Plenty of economic goods are not secured by codified property rights, defined and enforced from above. Communities are able to self-organize to define a reasonable set of behavioral norms. Local knowledge can be leveraged to generate better outcomes, and locality allows different communities to experiment with what actually works best, making the system as a whole more fault tolerant. See the work of Elinor Ostrom for several deeply investigated examples of this kind of organizing.
    - ameister14 13y ago
      It actually is. While plenty of economic goods may not be secured by codified property rights and instead are secured through the application of community norms, when those norms are challenged community does have to apply force. See: the majority of human history, particularly Pythagoras' attempt at community, every war for conquest, anarchic systems created in early Iceland/Scandinavia, normal people's experiences with bullies, etc.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > This isn't borne out, though, by actual experience. Yes, actually, the fact that, in the absence of a state (and, in fact, even in the presence of a de jure state but the absence of an effective state), people are free to claim whatever, but their ability to enforce a claim is dependent on their ability to muster force to press it is well established by experience. > Plenty of economic goods are not secured by codified property rights, defined and enforced from above. I don't disagree with that, but its not relevant to anything I said. > Communities are able to self-organize to define a reasonable set of behavioral norms. Again, I don't disagree (in fact, that's what a democratic state is.) > Local knowledge can be leveraged to generate better outcomes, and locality allows different communities to experiment with what actually works best, making the system as a whole more fault tolerant. And, yet again, I don't necessarily disagree with that in general (though I do think it is an overgeneralization), and, again, it doesn't contradict anything I said. >
dragonwriter 13y ago
> Abolition of property rights is usually down through coercive means by some agent of the state, hence it is top-down. Creation of property rights is always done through coercive means by the State. In the absence of such action, there are no property rights.
- nickff 13y ago
  This is not necessarily the case, and depends on your view of rights. If you believe in natural, self evident rights, (such as owning one's self,) then property rights can be derived in a number of ways. This is only one example, as there are a number of ways to establish property rights, some of which involve state coercion, and some of which do not.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > If you believe in natural, self evident rights, (such as owning one's self,) then property rights can be derived in a number of ways. Whether or not you believe in such rights, they are different kind of thing than legal rights and (notably) cannot be abolished. Confusing natural (i.e., moral) rights and legal rights is the fallacy of equivocation (and is equivalent to conflating a fact proposition with a value proposition.) Creation of legal property rights is always a top-down action by the State. It may be justified by a belief in certain inherent, unalterable moral rights (as, equally, can the abolition of legal property rights -- which is simply the State declining to continue to impose coercive means to uphold certain property rights), but that doesn't change that the mechanism by which they imposed is top-down, coercive action by the State.
    - nickff 13y ago
      I did not confuse anything, you left the type of right undefined. I assumed that the undefined right could be either moral or legal, whereas you interpret "right" to mean "legal right" unless explicitly stated otherwise. This has been an unfortunate misunderstanding.
      - 13y ago
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

thatswrong0 13y ago

> What is top-down about the abolition of private property and workers owning the means of production? What isn't? How could you get individuals to give up their property without the use of force, which would most likely come from the state?

jahaja 13y ago
I would say that the enforcement of private property is what requires the top-down approach. Not the abolishment of private property. e.g: If I would build my house at someones former vast private property (land). The property owner would somehow have to enforce he's or her's private property. Today this is done through the state.
- crusso 13y ago
  And without the state I couldn't just have a few of my employees or friends burn your house down? This whole argument of whether property rights or lack of property rights is due to a State is fundamentally misguided. The State is just force, and whether that force creates property rights or destroys common understanding of property rights depends upon how that force is applied.
  - jahaja 13y ago
    Of course. I agree with you, hence the "Today" in the last sentence. Tomorrow it might be other kinds of states or similar entities. The first sentence was however badly formulated. So it's true that a stateless society would need to defend against groups of thugs or similar just as we do today. This would probably be done in a decentralized manner rather than a paid centralized institution like today. The idea is to build a society that people would want to defend. So hopefully people would organise against thugs that claim private property rights, or also risk being exposed to them themselves.
duairc 13y ago
You have it completely backwards. Private property itself can't exist without the use of force and the state. If you abolish the state, you abolish private property. Let's say you're renting a house from some landlord. You live in this house, so it should be yours, right? The landlord already has another house that they live in. But it's not yours, it's the landlord's. Why is it the landlord's? Because if you stop paying rent, they can kick you out. How? Ultimately, by using the force of the state to remove you. If you get abolish private property (i.e., the state), then there is no “force” that makes the house the landlord's. It simply becomes your house. Abolishing private property doesn't mean getting individuals to “give up” their property, it means people can no longer use force to claim ownership over that which they do not use.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> What is top-down about the abolition of private property and workers owning the means of production? Inherently? Nothing. But that's the goal, and socialism is more than the goal, its the means: if you do that through the State, its "socialism". If you do part or all of it within a community by non-state means, its something else (anarcho-syndicalism, for instance.) Since capitalist states tend to impose structural disincentives or barriers to effectively altering relationships in this way, it may in practice to make changes through the State to achieve to goals even if those seeking them are not in favor of State action as an ideal (e.g., you can, within a community subject to a State with a capitalist view of property rights, perhaps restrict the impact of private property rights between members of the group, e.g., by contract, but you cannot force the State to withdraw from imposing certain models of property without exercising power through the State to make the change.)

JackFr 13y ago

It's top-down, because to engage in any endeavor of size requires some sort of organization 1) to actually direct the organization and 2) to amass the necessary physical capital necessary for the enterprise. Capitalism solves those two problems through the modern corporation which by selling tradeable claims on the profits (through shares) and the owners (shareholders) through an elected board hiring of directors hiring managers. Other systems which we have seen through history solve those problems through taxation and either appointment from the political class or professional bureaucracy. That is why it's top down. (While the latter system may seem appealing, it's feedback and informational characteristics are even worse than that for capitalist managers.)