World Republic

Uniting All People!
 
HomeHome  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  UsergroupsUsergroups  Log in  

Share | 
 

 Social Ingredientism.

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2  Next
AuthorMessage
Zealot_Kommunizma
Hero of the World Republic


Posts : 5413
Join date : 2007-12-06
Age : 28
Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl

PostSubject: Social Ingredientism.   Sun Dec 07, 2008 8:38 pm

So, there is this mistaken notion some people have that "socialism" can exist in different proportions within a system.

People with this notion often argue that a system can be 70% socialist and 30% capitalist therefore treating socialism as if more than a system itself, it was an ingredient, a social ingredient.

This notion comes from the misconception that socialism is either proportional to the ammount of welfare within a society or that it is proportional to how even wealth distribution within a society is.

Socialism doesn't stand for great welfare nor does it stand for equally sharing money or for State owned economy with equal salaries for the workers.

Socialism is a system in which the workers democratically own and control the whole economy to distribute the production in an egalitarian fashion. It is a system in which there is no state and no alientation thus no money, nor trade, nor exploitation (as no one profits at the expense of others), nor social classes, no taxation.

Socialism is more than just "free" healthcare and education, it's more than evening wealth - it's giving the workers absolute control over the economy for them to run it democratically.

So, this notion that socialism can exist in different proportions within a capitalist system is wrong as it treats socialism not as a system but as an "ingredient".

Therefore, I'll deem that wrong political posture "Ingredientism".

_________________


Last edited by Zealot_Kommunizma on Mon Dec 08, 2008 12:08 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unitedrevleftfront.forumotion.com/
CoolKidX
Chairman of the Supreme Council


Posts : 4639
Join date : 2008-02-14
Location : Netherlands

PostSubject: Re: Social Ingredientism.   Sun Dec 07, 2008 8:42 pm

So you can't be rich or have a really big house and so in Socialism?


Also, is Socialism in a Constitutional monarchy a part of reform and if it has a coalotion it can be like 50% socialism and 50% [..insert other then socialism here...] it isnt true socialism?

_________________
"Fuck gotta invade Ukraine" -- Vladimir Putin
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Zealot_Kommunizma
Hero of the World Republic


Posts : 5413
Join date : 2007-12-06
Age : 28
Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl

PostSubject: Re: Social Ingredientism.   Sun Dec 07, 2008 8:45 pm

CoolKidX wrote:
So you can't be rich or have a really big house and so in Socialism?

If you have a big house it's because
1. Everyone else has a big house, making it an average house
2. Everyone democratically determined that houses could be that big.

Define "rich" please.


CoolKidX wrote:

Also, is Socialism in a Constitutional monarchy a part of reform and if it has a coalotion it can be like 50% socialism and 50% [..insert other then socialism here...] it isnt true socialism?

No, it's not socialism at all. That's exactly "ingredientism".

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unitedrevleftfront.forumotion.com/
CoolKidX
Chairman of the Supreme Council


Posts : 4639
Join date : 2008-02-14
Location : Netherlands

PostSubject: Re: Social Ingredientism.   Sun Dec 07, 2008 8:47 pm

At rich I mean haveing much things which are expansive, like a ferrari,huge garden,big pool etc.

Like what will happen to all his stuff and his big house etc. after the workers have controlled the country?


Also, is Social Ingredientism like a sort Reform by Socialists?
As I said at the Constitutional monarchy part.

_________________
"Fuck gotta invade Ukraine" -- Vladimir Putin
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Zealot_Kommunizma
Hero of the World Republic


Posts : 5413
Join date : 2007-12-06
Age : 28
Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl

PostSubject: Re: Social Ingredientism.   Sun Dec 07, 2008 9:25 pm

CoolKidX wrote:
At rich I mean haveing much things which are expansive, like a ferrari,huge garden,big pool etc.

Like what will happen to all his stuff and his big house etc. after the workers have controlled the country?

In socialism nothing expensive as it has no price. The "relative value" of things is measured on how difficult they are to produce and how necesary they are but, since there is no trade or exchange of goods but just democratic production and distribution, everything will be provided according to need.

For example, there will be cars like Ferraris if people democratically want them. The impact of their production will be assesed and part of the workforce will be assigned to build such cars in proportion to the ammount of people requiring them. How will that number be determined? Democratically. It's like if they voted to build those cars. Since they're not of prime importance, they'll just be produced with surplus workforce since workforce will be focused in food, housing, electricity, telecommunications and infrastructure production and distribution.

Once, for example, construction needs are met that workforce can be diverted into the production of said cars.

You will tell me: "But it requires specialized workers to build such cars!"

These are the points that will allow their construction:

1. The plans for those cars and the manufacture historial exist, it's just matter of taking and checking them.
2. The design of the car is supervised by mechanical engineers which are part of the workforce. The assembly consists of two main parts: Serial production of parts and hand assembly. It's not an unreachable science.
3. Quality will be ensured both by plans, manufacture historial and trials.

Depending on the ammount of cars requested and the amount of workforce available it will take more or less time to suffice all the need for Ferrari cars.

For exaple:

Time 1:
30% of workforce is producing and distributing food.
10% is producing and distributing housing.
5% is producing and distributing electricity.
15% is distributing water.
5% is building infrastructure.
5% is building and distributing telecom.
10% is producing and distributing fuels.
15% is engaging in services.

That leaves us 5% of workforce available for surplus activities like building cars and such.

However, there is an important thing to take into account with socialism.

Socialist working shifts' organization will allow people to have a tremendous ammount of free time without hindering production rates Actually you can keep a whole industry working 24 hours a day while giving all the workers of that industry 21 free hours per day, that is 3 hour shifts. And even in that way you'd have efficience multiplied in contrast to capitalist economy. If they want they could work 2 or 3 shifts in different industries being able, if they want to have ferraris, to participate in Ferraris' production.

CoolKidX wrote:

Also, is Social Ingredientism like a sort Reform by Socialists?
As I said at the Constitutional monarchy part.

Social ingredientism is a misunderstanding of socialism. Social Ingredientism is the notion that socialism can be part of a capitalist society usually being this represented either by a welfare state, a great ammount of state control, both or simply an equal as possible distribution of wealth when actually socialism is not that.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unitedrevleftfront.forumotion.com/
Tyrlop
Chairman of the WR Committee


Posts : 1853
Join date : 2008-06-01

PostSubject: Re: Social Ingredientism.   Sun Dec 07, 2008 9:29 pm

what country is denmark?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
CoolKidX
Chairman of the Supreme Council


Posts : 4639
Join date : 2008-02-14
Location : Netherlands

PostSubject: Re: Social Ingredientism.   Sun Dec 07, 2008 9:32 pm

I see.


So when people voted for a socialist party in a monarchy they really just vote for a idealogy that isnt possible in reform.

_________________
"Fuck gotta invade Ukraine" -- Vladimir Putin
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Zeronos
ZEK in siberian gulag


Posts : 244
Join date : 2008-07-03
Age : 23
Location : Tennessee

PostSubject: Re: Social Ingredientism.   Sun Dec 07, 2008 10:08 pm

Tyrlop wrote:
what country is denmark?

Ingredientism.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Tyrlop
Chairman of the WR Committee


Posts : 1853
Join date : 2008-06-01

PostSubject: Re: Social Ingredientism.   Sun Dec 07, 2008 10:42 pm

Zeronos wrote:
Tyrlop wrote:
what country is denmark?

Ingredientism.
what is that?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Zeronos
ZEK in siberian gulag


Posts : 244
Join date : 2008-07-03
Age : 23
Location : Tennessee

PostSubject: Re: Social Ingredientism.   Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:17 pm

Tyrlop wrote:
Zeronos wrote:
Tyrlop wrote:
what country is denmark?

Ingredientism.
what is that?

Do you even read threads before you post in them?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Liche
Chairman of the Supreme Council


Posts : 4613
Join date : 2008-01-30
Age : 23
Location : USA-Virginia

PostSubject: Re: Social Ingredientism.   Mon Dec 08, 2008 2:55 am

Well, thanks for the information.

But I still feel there are different forms of Socialism, but I admit, when it all comes down to it, its not.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.epol.forumotion.com
Stos
New Party Member


Posts : 546
Join date : 2008-09-14

PostSubject: Re: Social Ingredientism.   Mon Dec 08, 2008 8:17 am

Liche wrote:
Well, thanks for the information.

But I still feel there are different forms of Socialism, but I admit, when it all comes down to it, its not.
Of course. For example, anarcho-syndicalism, mutualism, etc.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Zealot_Kommunizma
Hero of the World Republic


Posts : 5413
Join date : 2007-12-06
Age : 28
Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl

PostSubject: Re: Social Ingredientism.   Mon Dec 08, 2008 12:30 pm

Zeronos wrote:
Tyrlop wrote:
what country is denmark?

Ingredientism.


"Ingredientism", as I define it, is not a system but a misconception, a misunderstanding.

Basically, Ingredientism is the condition in which some people think that socialism can exist in different proportions within a capitalist society. They think that an entirely capitalist framework can actually be "partially socialist".

Ingredientists often believe in things like "mixed economies" (50% socialist and 50% capitalist according to their views) and often call State capitalisms "Socialism". They often consider things such as high taxation over rich private entrepeneurs and tax exemption for people with low incomes are "socialist traces" implying thus that a system that counts with such traits is "partially socialist".

As a summary, an ingredientist will treat socialism as an ingredient, as something that can partially exist within a context that completely opposes it instead of treating it as what it is: a completely different political, social and economical system.

According to this, Denmark and many other nordic states could be considered capitalist welfare states and ingredientism would be to consider them "partially socialist" or "socialist".

"Ingredientism" is often one of te main reasons for which some people actually have the misconception that socialism is viable through reforms effectively preventing them to realize that "socialism" is not a characteristic of a system but a system itself that requires the utter replacement of the actual one.

CoolKid was mentioning the possibility of a constitutional party to be socialist. That possibility exists, but that party, in order to be socialist, should have the whole intention to get rid of the actual system in case of winning. Since most, if not all represetntative "democracies" legally bind parties not to oppose the system (by not violating the constitution, limited by terms and by abiding to legislative chambers) that party that won wouldn't have chance to really impose socialism without confronting and effectively destroying the system. In other words, that party should destroy the system it employed to win the upper hand once achieving it.

If that selft-proclaimed socialist party didn't intend and tried to replace the system, it wouldn't be socialist.

This of course disregarding other factors that influde such as rigging, corruption, capitalist power over law enforcement corps... there are lots of considerations to be made which make greatly inefficient that alternative.

But even that alternative is revolutionary, not reformist. It's a non-viable alterniative (in most cases), but it's a revolutionary one.

Reformists tend to be inherently Ingredientist because they think that the system can be preserved while making it "socialist" little by little without actually even approaching to socialism.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unitedrevleftfront.forumotion.com/
Zealot_Kommunizma
Hero of the World Republic


Posts : 5413
Join date : 2007-12-06
Age : 28
Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl

PostSubject: Re: Social Ingredientism.   Tue Dec 09, 2008 12:35 am

Hoxhaist wrote:
zealot you are right but ingredientism is a shitty name. how about- capitalism

Capitalism is the system.

Ingredientism is the stupid thought that capitalism and socialism can coexist as part of the same framework.

I could have said it in such a simple way, but I needed arguements to back that statement up.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unitedrevleftfront.forumotion.com/
Liche
Chairman of the Supreme Council


Posts : 4613
Join date : 2008-01-30
Age : 23
Location : USA-Virginia

PostSubject: Re: Social Ingredientism.   Tue Dec 09, 2008 1:36 am

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:
Hoxhaist wrote:
zealot you are right but ingredientism is a shitty name. how about- capitalism

Capitalism is the system.

Ingredientism is the stupid thought that capitalism and socialism can coexist as part of the same framework.

I could have said it in such a simple way, but I needed arguements to back that statement up.

I think it works!
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.epol.forumotion.com
Kenzu
Chairman of the WR Committee


Posts : 1841
Join date : 2007-08-17
Age : 29
Location : Austria - Vienna

PostSubject: Re: Social Ingredientism.   Tue Dec 09, 2008 1:40 am

I think it is less that you can measure socialism in percent, but you can measure it by asking people if they think the country is socialist or not.

Unrelated to that, you can measure how much property is owned collectively or by the state, and how much is in private hands.

_________________
World Republic will prevail!
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://worldrepublic.forumotion.com
Liche
Chairman of the Supreme Council


Posts : 4613
Join date : 2008-01-30
Age : 23
Location : USA-Virginia

PostSubject: Re: Social Ingredientism.   Tue Dec 09, 2008 1:44 am

Kenzu wrote:
I think it is less that you can measure socialism in percent, but you can measure it by asking people if they think the country is socialist or not.

Unrelated to that, you can measure how much property is owned collectively or by the state, and how much is in private hands.
right on!
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.epol.forumotion.com
CoolKidX
Chairman of the Supreme Council


Posts : 4639
Join date : 2008-02-14
Location : Netherlands

PostSubject: Re: Social Ingredientism.   Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:43 am

So like Socialism can't co-exist with Captalism cause then it isnt Socialism anymore?

_________________
"Fuck gotta invade Ukraine" -- Vladimir Putin
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Zealot_Kommunizma
Hero of the World Republic


Posts : 5413
Join date : 2007-12-06
Age : 28
Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl

PostSubject: Re: Social Ingredientism.   Tue Dec 09, 2008 3:18 am

Kenzu wrote:
I think it is less that you can measure socialism in percent, but you can measure it by asking people if they think the country is socialist or not.

Well, I can also ask Mexicans wether they think Russia is larger than USA or not. If 56% say no, is Russia smaller than US democratically? (Actually there was a real poll, from 100 Mexicans asked only 5% got right that Russia is the largest country in the world).

This would work if most people knew what socialism stands for. It is not a matter of opinion b ut of knowledge.

If most people knew what socialism stands for, then they would obviously say that the system is not socialism. Also, they would bring down the system.

Kenzu wrote:

Unrelated to that, you can measure how much property is owned collectively or by the state, and how much is in private hands.

State ownership doesn't imply collective ownership by all the society. As a facade it does, de facto it doesn't. Socialism doesn't exist until the whole economy is in the hands of all the workers.

As you say, this is unrelated, but not only unrelated, it proves absolutely nothing.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unitedrevleftfront.forumotion.com/
Stos
New Party Member


Posts : 546
Join date : 2008-09-14

PostSubject: Re: Social Ingredientism.   Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:32 am

Kenzu wrote:
I think it is less that you can measure socialism in percent, but you can measure it by asking people if they think the country is socialist or not.
Laughing

Quote :
Unrelated to that, you can measure how much property is owned collectively or by the state, and how much is in private hands.
Ah, so this is where the misunderstanding lies.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Zealot_Kommunizma
Hero of the World Republic


Posts : 5413
Join date : 2007-12-06
Age : 28
Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl

PostSubject: Re: Social Ingredientism.   Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:37 am

CoolKidX wrote:
So like Socialism can't co-exist with Captalism cause then it isnt Socialism anymore?

It's simple CoolKidX: Socialism implies no capitalism. If there is a capitalist framework, there's no socialism within it.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unitedrevleftfront.forumotion.com/
Black_Cross
Chairman of the WR Committee


Posts : 1702
Join date : 2008-04-04
Age : 28
Location : Sisyphean Hell

PostSubject: Re: Social Ingredientism.   Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:59 pm

Kenzu wrote:
I think it is less that you can measure socialism in percent, but you can measure it by asking people if they think the country is socialist or not.

So the term socialism is subject to change in each society, at any point in time, by anyone who wants to give their opinion about it, whether they're informed or not? That's a weak argument Kenzu, for reasons that should be self-evident.

Quote :
Unrelated to that, you can measure how much property is owned collectively or by the state, and how much is in private hands.

Just because the industry is in state hands, doesn't mean there's been any socializing of the industry. It's just gone from capitalist property, to state capitalist property. I see little difference, and little reason to rejoice.

Liche wrote:
right on!

Really? Cos i found that his arguments were without substance.

_________________
"A market economy must comprise all elements of industry including labor, land and money [...] But labor and land are no other than the human beings themselves of which every society consists and the natural surroundings in which it exists. To include them in the market mechanism means to subordinate the substance of society itself."
--Karl Polanyi--
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Zealot_Kommunizma
Hero of the World Republic


Posts : 5413
Join date : 2007-12-06
Age : 28
Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl

PostSubject: Re: Social Ingredientism.   Tue Dec 09, 2008 9:41 pm

All I have to say is: Thanks Black_Cross.


And I'll base on a quote of your from the "power" thread:

To think that socialism can be stablished through capitalism, or that capitalism and socialism can exist in the same framework is like trying to keep virgin while having sex.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unitedrevleftfront.forumotion.com/
alexCCCP-RUS-54321
World Republic Party Member


Posts : 728
Join date : 2007-12-22
Age : 107
Location : Canada/Russia/World

PostSubject: Re: Social Ingredientism.   Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:46 am

I have a few things to say:
1. What if you changed some aspects of socialism to create a new socialism, not a democratic and communist society at the same time. For example, You can elect you leader, while having the same things a normal comunist society would. Someone might say to me, socialism is socalism, how can the leader make dicisions? I bet not, but I will answer: They could regulate such things as what is asigned to whom, and foreign aspects,for examle, the USA and what it is doing to harm the state, bad relations, public relations, and the military.
2. Could you explain in greter detail about "relative prices. I have a good idea, but I would like to know for sure, all aspects, of what it is.
3. Could you have a Socialist society where it is doing so well that the people are "rich" (Ferrari affording) , but where everyone is still equeal?
Please enlighten me, I command you poor delude souls!....sorry.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Zealot_Kommunizma
Hero of the World Republic


Posts : 5413
Join date : 2007-12-06
Age : 28
Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl

PostSubject: Re: Social Ingredientism.   Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:16 am

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:
I have a few things to say:
1. What if you changed some aspects of socialism to create a new socialism, not a democratic and communist society at the same time.

Then it wouldn't be socialism.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

For example, You can elect you leader, while having the same things a normal comunist society would. Someone might say to me, socialism is socalism, how can the leader make dicisions? I bet not, but I will answer: They could regulate such things as what is asigned to whom, and foreign aspects,for examle, the USA and what it is doing to harm the state, bad relations, public relations, and the military.

This is to some extent the ideal of Stalinists, Totalitarian democrats and Social Monarchists. But it simply doesn't work: people would still be submit to a single centraliced body (being undemocratic) and the whole economy would depend on the efficience of said body instead of relying in every person's knowledge and conviction, being thus weak.

alex-CCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

2. Could you explain in greter detail about "relative prices. I have a good idea, but I would like to know for sure, all aspects, of what it is.

In socialism there's no such thing as "relative prices" for there's no intrasocietal trade. There are "relative values" which are proportional to the difficulty it implies to obtain that product. However, since there's no alienation thus no trade, that is irrelevant.

alex-CCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

3. Could you have a Socialist society where it is doing so well that the people are "rich" (Ferrari affording) , but where everyone is still equeal?
Please enlighten me, I command you poor delude souls!....sorry.

In socialism you don't have to afford anything. Everything is just produced and distributed according to need. Basically, everyone wanting a Ferrari could have one but the way they're produced and distributed would be determined democratically, that is, if a small portion of the population wants a Ferrari they have two options: Either wait for workforce to be available to suffice Ferrari's production (for example when no more workforce is being used for construction of infrastructure and so is available to work in Ferrari production) or work in the construction of them themselves.

Socialist economy works very differently from Capitalist economy. In fact, we socialists can't even talk about the details of how socialist economy would work except for the next: Socialist economy is democratic and egalitarian. It is based in the end of alienation and is planned.

I myself have my proposal for socialist economic models and I'm working on it. I'm writting an essay and made some calculators and mathematical models for them. When I have them ready I'll probably post them here.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unitedrevleftfront.forumotion.com/
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Social Ingredientism.   Today at 11:16 pm

Back to top Go down
 
Social Ingredientism.
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 2Go to page : 1, 2  Next
 Similar topics
-
» Obama cannot guarantee that social security checks will go out on August 3rd
» OCCUPATIONAL STRESS INJURY SOCIAL SUPPORT (OSISS)
» The failure of social democracy?
» Richie Giese (Social Repose)
» Social-Krispo

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
World Republic :: Capitol of the World Republic :: Red Square-
Jump to: