Nothing at all, which is why I deliberately characterised the position of everything being public property as an extreme (and, one I described as Communist rather than Socialist) that no one here (and very few anywhere) would consider.
That's mischaracterising what public ownership is. I've no interest in having say in Thames Water, because I'd rather have a say in Northumbria Water. Likewise, I've no interest in having a co-operative with HarperCollins, because I don't write for them.
Public ownership doesn't mean ownership by the whole public. Just by the stakeholders. The government may be a stakeholder, it might not. And under communism, there'd be no government anyway.
Where have I suggested anything different from your view? Within the exchange that you're getting excited about I gave examples that weren't just government ownership (community or cooperative ownership), and earlier in the thread I've expressed several forms of public ownership that are more than just "the government owns it". All I'm saying is that's it's possible to push the boundaries beyond where we are, even though I've consistently acknowledged that none of us are doing so. And, I've labelled that an extreme view of ownership (that effectively no individual owns anything beyond the most personal of items, such as their toothbrush).
And, the confusion often comes down to an apparently arbitrary division between "personal property" and "private property" - one that's not very useful in relation to those who think the government is going to "steal" their property. No one seriously thinks the government is going to pinch their toothbrush. But, we've all seen concerns (well founded or not) about the government taking both "personal" and "private" property - if "personal property" is anything not land or buildings then that includes money put aside for retirement and other non-fixed assets, and there are lots of people concerned that a socialist government would tax those away, and the "private property" being land and buildings then would community buy-outs be an example of socialists taking land, would nationalisation be taking away the factories? Yes, I know these have technical meanings within Marxist writings, but to be honest to anyone not versed in Marxism it's a meaningless distinction.
Doc Tor: Likewise, I've no interest in having a co-operative with HarperCollins, because I don't write for them.
Perhaps, so; but you might be a reader or potential reader of their books and have an interest in their pricing policy, possible to enable poorer members of the community to have access to their publications.
Well, despite the clear and widely-accepted definitions of personal property and private property that I was more than prepared to agree with, yet again the conversation has been dragged into the long grass. Sigh.
Under communism there would be no state, but there would need to be a government to organise "the administration of things" - a bit like Amazon, I guess!
No, there'd be local, regional and transregional councils, all fully democratic and accountable.
Why would you even think it'd be a bit like Amazon?
Well, despite the clear and widely-accepted definitions of personal property and private property that I was more than prepared to agree with, yet again the conversation has been dragged into the long grass. Sigh.
Except, it's a set of definitions that some of us here have never previously encountered. And, a definition that the Wiki page you linked to stated is used in socialist circles (though, clearly not those I've been in) but not capitalism.
For most people, "private property" would be somewhere you're not allowed to go. And, "personal property" things they own. That's not exactly the same as the definition you're using - they may consider their own home as personal property, but only think of "private property" as applying to large estates, who would put a "private property" sign outside their 3 bed semi? but, would consider it common on a farm.
who would put a "private property" sign outside their 3 bed semi?
It's pretty common to have "Private" on doors in a B&B, for example, that lead to rooms the owner lives in, rather than the public spaces. That's not so far off from your sign on a 3-bed semi.
Under communism there would be no state, but there would need to be a government to organise "the administration of things" - a bit like Amazon, I guess!
Doc Tor: Why would you even think it'd be a bit like Amazon?
Because Marx envisaged a time when there would be no more scarcity, so that supply would equal demand and there would be no conflicts over the allocation of resources. The only practical difficulty would be ensuring wants were efficiently delivered.
who would put a "private property" sign outside their 3 bed semi?
It's pretty common to have "Private" on doors in a B&B, for example, that lead to rooms the owner lives in, rather than the public spaces. That's not so far off from your sign on a 3-bed semi.
Except, under the definition given, the entire building is private property not just the bits with the sign on the door. A B&B would be private property where members of the public are permitted (under certain conditions, including having paid) in some areas but not others. The same would apply to, say, a public house which would be private property.
Public ownership doesn't mean ownership by the whole public. Just by the stakeholders. The government may be a stakeholder, it might not. And under communism, there'd be no government anyway.
"Public ownership" is often used interchangeably with "government ownership". If a Labour minister says "we're going to take the widget industry into public ownership" he means he wants to nationalise it.
The models of ownership that we see around us seem to be:
- the one-man business (including writers like Doc Tor ?) with or without employees
- the partnership - two or more joint owners (often found amongst lawyers or vets ?) with or without employees who are not partners
- the joint stock company (owned by whichever members of the general public choose to buy the shares)
- government agencies (with various degrees of arms-length relationship from the government of the day).
All these exist under our mixed economy. Is there any need of laws to create new forms ?
Seems to me that perhaps the change you're arguing for is a law to compel all businesses (all four categories) to be governed by a Board that includes a member elected by the employees and a member who is appointed by local government or elected by a local residents' association (to represent "the community").
Is that what you want ? Is that what you mean by socialism ?
"Public ownership" is often used interchangeably with "government ownership". If a Labour minister says "we're going to take the widget industry into public ownership" he means he wants to nationalise it.
The models of ownership that we see around us seem to be:
- the one-man business (including writers like Doc Tor ?) with or without employees
- the partnership - two or more joint owners (often found amongst lawyers or vets ?) with or without employees who are not partners
- the joint stock company (owned by whichever members of the general public choose to buy the shares)
- government agencies (with various degrees of arms-length relationship from the government of the day).
All these exist under our mixed economy. Is there any need of laws to create new forms ?
Your list could also include:
Worker cooperatives - where the business is owned by the workers
Consumer cooperatives - where the business is owned by those who use the service (mutual insurance and building societies would be common examples)
Some mix of the above - workers and users sharing ownership
Community trusts - where a local community owns the property, independently of either local or national government
Charitable trusts - where the property is owned by a charity (which may be a community trust, see above) for the furtherance of the aims of the charity; this would include churches, National Trust etc
Common ownership
All of these, and other models, would be a form of socialism. And, all could exist within a mixed economy. All of that list would be preferable for most industries, those industries which are natural monopolies or provide essential infrastructure (public transport, utilities, health, education and the like) are candidates for government ownership (either local or national). The "widget industry" in public ownership would probably be more naturally a series of different businesses as some form of cooperative rather than government owned (depending on precisely what the widget is). I don't see even the most socialist in Labour advocating, say, buying up car manufacture back into government owned status but would support workers buy-outs of existing car manufacturing businesses. Taking back rail franchises to create a single government owned rail transport network makes a lot of sense, because this is essential infrastructure.
Marvin the Martian: I can’t pick up my house and move it elsewhere. Does that mean I shouldn’t be allowed to own it?
As far as I can make out the distinction between personal and private property has no utility in a society that retains the concept of private property. In a socialist society where there is no private property, however, personal property relates to trivia over which the society as a whole has no interest. Thus, private property and personal property do not co-exist. Your question, ISTM, relates to how it is decided in a socialist society what constitutes personal property.
Marvin the Martian: I can’t pick up my house and move it elsewhere. Does that mean I shouldn’t be allowed to own it?
As far as I can make out the distinction between personal and private property has no utility in a society that retains the concept of private property. In a socialist society where there is no private property, however, personal property relates to trivia over which the society as a whole has no interest. Thus, private property and personal property do not co-exist. Your question, ISTM, relates to how it is decided in a socialist society what constitutes personal property.
Yes, which is why Doc Tor’s original comment about people being free to enjoy their personal property requires quite a lot of clarification. It sounds like he’s saying “you will be able to enjoy full use of all your possessions”, but for all we know that might be spin to hide the fact that the real meaning is “you will be able to enjoy full use of your toothbrush and other such trivial items, but anything bigger or that we determine society has an interest in will be taken into collective ownership”.
It’s important - fundamentally so - to know which statement we’re actually discussing.
I'm not in the best place to answer this at the moment as I'm whacked out on codeine, but ffs @Marvin the Martian , you don't own your own house at the moment - the bank does. You can own your own home under socialism. In fact, many more people would be likely to own their own home.
Any other confected outrages to deal with while I'm briefly conscious?
I'm not in the best place to answer this at the moment as I'm whacked out on codeine, but ffs @Marvin the Martian , you don't own your own house at the moment - the bank does. You can own your own home under socialism. In fact, many more people would be likely to own their own home.
And I'd rather that you engage with some modicum of a commitment to stand by your own assertions rather than just sling around accusations of bad faith.
As a criterion for determining what is and isn't "personal property", "Does it have utility outside of being a home" is a pretty far cry from "If you can pick it up and move it".
It’s all well and good to say that the state isn’t a threat to your personal property - that it protects it, even - but if you then go on to define a significant chunk of what most people would consider their personal property as not falling within that remit then the state being a threat to ones property is very much still a possibility.
It’s bait and switch. Get people to agree to your policies by saying they will protect their property, then suddenly reveal that you’re actually going to take away their second home/spare car/business/shareholdings/etc. because those things weren’t in the definition of “property” in the small print.
I’m also still very concerned that the definition of “personal property” includes an upper bound on how much of it any one person can own (which will probably be phrased as “how many toothbrushes do you need anyway?” or similar). And that that upper bound is considerably lower than a lot of people would like.
What one person considers a good life might be what another would consider a pretty rubbish life. Is it fair to impose the first persons standards on the second?
If the way what people can afford to have is calculated in terms of what this planet can afford one family or one peraon to have, would that make a difference?
I think arguing over the difference between personal and private property is a red herring because for all practical purposes there is no analytical. difference.
Worker cooperatives - where the business is owned by the workers
Is there any difference between a worker cooperative and a partnership that has no other employees ?
Building societies - yes, that's a good example of a distinct model. I guess many charities are similar ? A group of people form a club or association and contribute assets which are then owned by members collectively, and set the rules as to who else can be a member. With one option being that all customers are automatically members.
Community trusts - where a local community owns the property, independently of either local or national government
Is that like a club where the members decide that the condition for membership is place of residence ?
All of these, and other models, would be a form of socialism.
So what makes these models "socialist" and others not ?
Is everything socialist except one person owning as an individual ?
If a club sets the rule of membership as being that anyone can join but you have to contribute the same amount of money as existing members have already contributed (which has a certain justice to it), is that equivalent to shareholding ?
Does it have utility outside of being a home? If you rent it out in whole or part, those parts are obviously not personal property.
Seems to me, Doc, that you're trying to draw a hard line between what a person possesses for their own use and enjoyment and what they trade with others.
I own a number of apple trees. I think you've clarified that the issue for you is not whether I can pick them up and move them, but whether I eat the apples or sell the apples.
So it's not that you want the government to own/control everything. It's that you want the government to own/control all exchange between people.
Worker cooperatives - where the business is owned by the workers
Is there any difference between a worker cooperative and a partnership that has no other employees ?
Building societies - yes, that's a good example of a distinct model. I guess many charities are similar ? A group of people form a club or association and contribute assets which are then owned by members collectively, and set the rules as to who else can be a member. With one option being that all customers are automatically members.
Community trusts - where a local community owns the property, independently of either local or national government
Is that like a club where the members decide that the condition for membership is place of residence ?
All of these, and other models, would be a form of socialism.
So what makes these models "socialist" and others not ?
Is everything socialist except one person owning as an individual ?
If a club sets the rule of membership as being that anyone can join but you have to contribute the same amount of money as existing members have already contributed (which has a certain justice to it), is that equivalent to shareholding ?
Does it have utility outside of being a home? If you rent it out in whole or part, those parts are obviously not personal property.
Seems to me, Doc, that you're trying to draw a hard line between what a person possesses for their own use and enjoyment and what they trade with others.
I own a number of apple trees. I think you've clarified that the issue for you is not whether I can pick them up and move them, but whether I eat the apples or sell the apples.
So it's not that you want the government to own/control everything. It's that you want the government to own/control all exchange between people.
The government does control all exchange between people. It does so reactively (when people get hurt, agreements broken) but even in the realm of libertarian fantasy governments still enforce contracts.
I'm not in the best place to answer this at the moment as I'm whacked out on codeine, but ffs @Marvin the Martian , you don't own your own house at the moment - the bank does.
Are you privy to Marvin's financial affairs, or just making a general assumption that no-one ever pays off a mortgage?
Well done on completely derailing the thread by the way. I'd have never bet on you as the one to do it.
I own a house, the bank doesn’t, but it’s still the case that I am regulated in what I can do with it and have to money every year to retain a lawful position. When I die whoever I leave it too may also be liable to pay a chunk of money to retain it, and an ongoing payment to the state.
...even in the realm of libertarian fantasy governments still enforce contracts.
You're right - nobody here is saying they shouldn't.
But that's not control; that's offering a service. Individuals can trade without a legally-binding contract. That they have the option to make an enforceable contract increases rather than restricting their choices.
Firstly, it should give you pause that the people you are arguing with are proponents of the Human Rights Act and Universal Human Rights in general.
I think this reflects different interpretations of the notion of "rights".
To those of us who lean to starboard, rights are synonymous with freedoms. To say that you have a right to free speech, privacy, practice of religion etc is to say that the state does wrong when it makes and enforces laws that prevent or prohibit these. This is rights against interference by the state.
To those who lean to port, rights means not letting poverty prohibit access having to certain goods. Their concept of rights is about stuff like rights to health, housing, education. Seen not so much as imposing on the state the negative duty not to prevent people from acquiring medicines, dwellings, teaching, but more a positive duty to provide these. This is rights to stuff from the state.
Seems like many socialists would prohibit private health provision, private education, private rented housing (*). In the interests of improving public provision. And see this as entirely consistent with their notion of rights.
So no, interest in "human rights" as a topic does not mean that socialists aren't authoritarian. Because the concept of rights is interpretable in an authoritarian way.
(*) some would say that they wouldn't prohibit these things. Just so tightly regulate them as to make them indistinguishable from the government version, thereby removing any effective choice...
Governments can be a force for good; that's arguably the reason we have democracy.
Yes, governments can be a force for good. I'm not an anarchist. But the line between good government and bad government does not coincide with the line between governments that are voted in (and can therefore be voted out) and those that are not.
You've said that part of the issue is that propaganda works. To admit that is to admit that what people can be persuaded to vote for is not the critical factor in thinking about what good government is.
Voting can be an idol, just as legality can be an idol.
Individuals can trade without a legally-binding contract.
Not in England and Wales they can’t. They may not put anything in writing, but if there is offer and acceptance and a valuable consideration then Common Law or statute will make it legally enforceable, unless there is a requirement for it to be in writing.
...even in the realm of libertarian fantasy governments still enforce contracts.
You're right - nobody here is saying they shouldn't.
But that's not control; that's offering a service. Individuals can trade without a legally-binding contract. That they have the option to make an enforceable contract increases rather than restricting their choices.
Firstly, it should give you pause that the people you are arguing with are proponents of the Human Rights Act and Universal Human Rights in general.
I think this reflects different interpretations of the notion of "rights".
To those of us who lean to starboard, rights are synonymous with freedoms. To say that you have a right to free speech, privacy, practice of religion etc is to say that the state does wrong when it makes and enforces laws that prevent or prohibit these. This is rights against interference by the state.
To those who lean to port, rights means not letting poverty prohibit access having to certain goods. Their concept of rights is about stuff like rights to health, housing, education. Seen not so much as imposing on the state the negative duty not to prevent people from acquiring medicines, dwellings, teaching, but more a positive duty to provide these. This is rights to stuff from the state.
Seems like many socialists would prohibit private health provision, private education, private rented housing (*). In the interests of improving public provision. And see this as entirely consistent with their notion of rights.
So no, interest in "human rights" as a topic does not mean that socialists aren't authoritarian. Because the concept of rights is interpretable in an authoritarian way.
(*) some would say that they wouldn't prohibit these things. Just so tightly regulate them as to make them indistinguishable from the government version, thereby removing any effective choice...
Governments can be a force for good; that's arguably the reason we have democracy.
Yes, governments can be a force for good. I'm not an anarchist. But the line between good government and bad government does not coincide with the line between governments that are voted in (and can therefore be voted out) and those that are not.
You've said that part of the issue is that propaganda works. To admit that is to admit that what people can be persuaded to vote for is not the critical factor in thinking about what good government is.
Voting can be an idol, just as legality can be an idol.
I don't think I follow this at all.
Firstly "Individuals can trade without a legally-binding contract. That they have the option to make an enforceable contract increases rather than restricting their choices." This is not really true. Of course, trade can take place without some sort of legal framework but ultimately there then exist risks to one or other party which mean that they potentially have to use force to prevent the other party from defrauding them. It's worth remembering (and is so often ignored in terms of safety regulations) that it's not just about the occasions when enforcement is needed. It's also about the fact that many actors would step out of line if enforcement did not exist. So, if there is a stat like say only 1% of employees ever go to an employment tribunal* therefore most of us never benefit from this service would be a completely fallacious conclusion. Some (many?) of us benefit from the fact that our employers know that such an enforcement body exists and thus they can be held to account. The vast majority of trade uses currency. Actual bartering is rare. Thus there has to be some agreement on what makes the currency. Historically, this was a standardised weight/measure, now days it's very much about the government-based official currency.
Trade is possible without legally enforceable contracts but it would be very different from how we trade right now.
[*I've no idea what the actual stat is and can't be bothered to look. This is one I just made up for the example].
Secondly, your characterization of my (and other) Lefties view of Rights is both wrong and completely contrary to what I stated in my post. The whole point about Human Rights is that they are about freedom - especially freedom from the State. I reiterate my point that the HRA is unique in that it only applies to the government itself. Thus the idea that being socialist means being authoritarian just doesn't follow. Moreover as a rule, telling someone what they believe rather than listening to them telling you what they actually think is not a particularly effective debating technique.
Thirdly - and this is of fundamental importance - Good laws increase freedom. Hence the idea that to be anti-state is to be pro-freedom is deeply flawed. (Of course, bad laws decrease freedom, that's obvious but doesn't undermine what I've just said).
Fourthly you have argued against me by restating my argument. One I've made here and elsewhere that democracy doesn't automatically work. I believe very strongly in constitutional limits that prevent the tyranny of the majority against the minority but that's slightly beside the point. Democracy is the best form of accountability in governing the world has yet found. Nowhere have I said that democracy = good government. But I am a democratic socialist - I believe in the democratic process, in holding governments to account and persuading people to vote for socialist policies that benefit us all.
Democracy is the best form of accountability in governing the world has yet found. Nowhere have I said that democracy = good government. But I am a democratic socialist - I believe in the democratic process, in holding governments to account and persuading people to vote for socialist policies that benefit us all.
What exactly are you trying to say?
Socialist policies don't benefit us all.
Upthread somewhere I argued for policies that do benefit us all (because they offer a net benefit and the winners compensate the losers so that everybody gains). None of the socialists here agreed that this is how things should be done.
The characteristically-socialist policy that was also discussed is redistribution of income - taking money away from some people to give to others for no reason other than it satisfies somebody's notion of how things ought to be. This is not looking for win-win outcomes that benefit us all; it is the very opposite.
Democracy is a good thing. And it is an aid to accountability. But possibly less effective than some form of judicial review process which holds government to doing only what the constitution says that government may do.
Doc Tor seems to believe that governments may do whatever the democratic process lets them get away with. I disagree.
I'm glad that you disagree too.
But your professed socialism leads me to doubt that you wish to protect all minorities from the malice of the majority.
Democracy is the best form of accountability in governing the world has yet found. Nowhere have I said that democracy = good government. But I am a democratic socialist - I believe in the democratic process, in holding governments to account and persuading people to vote for socialist policies that benefit us all.
What exactly are you trying to say?
Socialist policies don't benefit us all.
Upthread somewhere I argued for policies that do benefit us all (because they offer a net benefit and the winners compensate the losers so that everybody gains). None of the socialists here agreed that this is how things should be done.
The characteristically-socialist policy that was also discussed is redistribution of income - taking money away from some people to give to others for no reason other than it satisfies somebody's notion of how things ought to be. This is not looking for win-win outcomes that benefit us all; it is the very opposite.
Democracy is a good thing. And it is an aid to accountability. But possibly less effective than some form of judicial review process which holds government to doing only what the constitution says that government may do.
Doc Tor seems to believe that governments may do whatever the democratic process lets them get away with. I disagree.
I'm glad that you disagree too.
But your professed socialism leads me to doubt that you wish to protect all minorities from the malice of the majority.
So once again you'd rather tell me what I think rather than listening to what I've said.
Enlightened self-interest and the costs of inequality are just two concepts mentioned.
Moreover the idea that the rich are a minority in need of special protection (when we've already discussed how wealth leads to massively disproportionate power) is plain silly.
Individuals can trade without a legally-binding contract.
Not in England and Wales they can’t. They may not put anything in writing, but if there is offer and acceptance and a valuable consideration then Common Law or statute will make it legally enforceable, unless there is a requirement for it to be in writing.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who had this reaction. A "contract" is not "a fancy document that a lawyer drew up".
I'm not in the best place to answer this at the moment as I'm whacked out on codeine, but ffs @Marvin the Martian , you don't own your own house at the moment - the bank does.
Are you privy to Marvin's financial affairs, or just making a general assumption that no-one ever pays off a mortgage?
Well done on completely derailing the thread by the way. I'd have never bet on you as the one to do it.
Secondly, are you contending that someone with a mortgage on their home owns it in the same way that someone who doesn't? What do you think the role of the bank is in that situation? Is it an unreasonable assumption that a mortgage is in play here? Why the snark?
Thirdly, a more general point. The deliberate and wilful misinterpretation of personal and private property is more your bias than anything I've said. It's not that the state will somehow seize your private property. It's that it gets regulated differently. That's all.
Secondly, are you contending that someone with a mortgage on their home owns it in the same way that someone who doesn't?
I'll contend that, if you like. A mortgage is a specific example of a loan secured against a piece of property that I own. If I didn't own my house, I couldn't secure a loan against it. It's not a hire-purchase agreement, the bank doesn't own my house, and the bank generally tries quite hard not to end up in the situation where it has to own my house, because it really doesn't want a house - it wants money.
On whether I can muster a coalition of like-minded people to out vote those who want to take them away from me ?
Or on whether or not you judge that the sum total of human happiness is greater that way ?
That "may" expresses your rejection of the notion of a moral right to property.
But you're not coming clean about what you'd put in its place.
On your first account each apple is mine because I can pick it up and carry it. On your second account it's mine ad long as I intend to eat it, but as soon as I intend to barter it to my neighbour for her surplus eggs then it becomes a different category of property which rightfully belongs to the government.
But apparently I'm supposed to take it on authority that this distinction is real and well-founded...
Secondly, are you contending that someone with a mortgage on their home owns it in the same way that someone who doesn't?
I'll contend that, if you like. A mortgage is a specific example of a loan secured against a piece of property that I own. If I didn't own my house, I couldn't secure a loan against it. It's not a hire-purchase agreement, the bank doesn't own my house, and the bank generally tries quite hard not to end up in the situation where it has to own my house, because it really doesn't want a house - it wants money.
And the reason it is called a mortgage and not a loan is because normally a lender WOULD take possession of the collateral during the period of the loan.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true, is it? We don’t call car loans mortgages, even though the lender doesn’t take possession of the collateral (the car.)
I don’t think that’s necessarily true, is it? We don’t call car loans mortgages, even though the lender doesn’t take possession of the collateral (the car.)
Most car loans are just personal loans though aren't they? They're not usually secured. Secured loans on cars are at the shabbier end of the market - log book loans as they are known.
With cars it has tended to be hire purchase. Your earlier payments are hire payments, and it is the final payment under the agreement that is the legal purchase. In that scenario the car remains the property of the lender until the final payment is made.
From what I’ve gathered from skimming a few investment web sites I’m pretty sure they’re usually secured by the car, at least in the US. One reason would be that terms are generally better for secured loans.
Ah, either a pond difference or a difference in terminology. Generally loans in the UK are unsecured, unless it's a mortgage or from a pawnbroker and the rates are generally higher than lower unless your credit rating has been shredded. There are various leasing models for cars that allow you to buy at the end of the agreement but they're not described as loans.
If the way what people can afford to have is calculated in terms of what this planet can afford one family or one peraon to have, would that make a difference?
Interesting question.
I'd say that there are at base two different models of how limited resources are allocated - the planned economy and the market economy.
Planetary resource limits are hard constraints. But those constraints don't dictate any particular distribution.
Seems like the characteristics of planned and market economies aren't all that different in a situation of hard constraints than they are in a situation where resources are seen as expandable at a significant cost (which you might call soft constraints).
In other words it's greenwash. An excuse for those who like to frame the issue in terms of distribution - who has how much or how little and is this a Good Thing ?
Planned economies are a tried-and-failed idea.
There are real issues in the area of environmental economics. But planet-mandated maximum wealth limits aren't one of them.
We'd all do much better thinking about how "polluter pays" can be implemented. How us humans have grown so numerous and so resource-consuming that a market that ignores environmental externalities sends the wrong price-signals. And how to correct that. That's the real green issue.
"Planned economy" and "market economy" have both failed. That means we need to find an alternative economic model ... I propose that we give socialism a try (maybe eco-socialism).
Are they? Seems to me that the problem with Stalin's 5 year plans wasn't that they failed but that success came at too high a price. A planned economy is what won WW2. A planned economy is what put China in the global position it is in today.
Comments
And, the confusion often comes down to an apparently arbitrary division between "personal property" and "private property" - one that's not very useful in relation to those who think the government is going to "steal" their property. No one seriously thinks the government is going to pinch their toothbrush. But, we've all seen concerns (well founded or not) about the government taking both "personal" and "private" property - if "personal property" is anything not land or buildings then that includes money put aside for retirement and other non-fixed assets, and there are lots of people concerned that a socialist government would tax those away, and the "private property" being land and buildings then would community buy-outs be an example of socialists taking land, would nationalisation be taking away the factories? Yes, I know these have technical meanings within Marxist writings, but to be honest to anyone not versed in Marxism it's a meaningless distinction.
Perhaps, so; but you might be a reader or potential reader of their books and have an interest in their pricing policy, possible to enable poorer members of the community to have access to their publications.
No, there'd be local, regional and transregional councils, all fully democratic and accountable.
Why would you even think it'd be a bit like Amazon?
For most people, "private property" would be somewhere you're not allowed to go. And, "personal property" things they own. That's not exactly the same as the definition you're using - they may consider their own home as personal property, but only think of "private property" as applying to large estates, who would put a "private property" sign outside their 3 bed semi? but, would consider it common on a farm.
It's pretty common to have "Private" on doors in a B&B, for example, that lead to rooms the owner lives in, rather than the public spaces. That's not so far off from your sign on a 3-bed semi.
You are describing neo-liberalism, not communism.
Because Marx envisaged a time when there would be no more scarcity, so that supply would equal demand and there would be no conflicts over the allocation of resources. The only practical difficulty would be ensuring wants were efficiently delivered.
Owning the home you live in isn't the problem so much as owning the homes that others live in or that lie empty.
"Public ownership" is often used interchangeably with "government ownership". If a Labour minister says "we're going to take the widget industry into public ownership" he means he wants to nationalise it.
The models of ownership that we see around us seem to be:
- the one-man business (including writers like Doc Tor ?) with or without employees
- the partnership - two or more joint owners (often found amongst lawyers or vets ?) with or without employees who are not partners
- the joint stock company (owned by whichever members of the general public choose to buy the shares)
- government agencies (with various degrees of arms-length relationship from the government of the day).
All these exist under our mixed economy. Is there any need of laws to create new forms ?
Seems to me that perhaps the change you're arguing for is a law to compel all businesses (all four categories) to be governed by a Board that includes a member elected by the employees and a member who is appointed by local government or elected by a local residents' association (to represent "the community").
Is that what you want ? Is that what you mean by socialism ?
Worker cooperatives - where the business is owned by the workers
Consumer cooperatives - where the business is owned by those who use the service (mutual insurance and building societies would be common examples)
Some mix of the above - workers and users sharing ownership
Community trusts - where a local community owns the property, independently of either local or national government
Charitable trusts - where the property is owned by a charity (which may be a community trust, see above) for the furtherance of the aims of the charity; this would include churches, National Trust etc
Common ownership
All of these, and other models, would be a form of socialism. And, all could exist within a mixed economy. All of that list would be preferable for most industries, those industries which are natural monopolies or provide essential infrastructure (public transport, utilities, health, education and the like) are candidates for government ownership (either local or national). The "widget industry" in public ownership would probably be more naturally a series of different businesses as some form of cooperative rather than government owned (depending on precisely what the widget is). I don't see even the most socialist in Labour advocating, say, buying up car manufacture back into government owned status but would support workers buy-outs of existing car manufacturing businesses. Taking back rail franchises to create a single government owned rail transport network makes a lot of sense, because this is essential infrastructure.
As far as I can make out the distinction between personal and private property has no utility in a society that retains the concept of private property. In a socialist society where there is no private property, however, personal property relates to trivia over which the society as a whole has no interest. Thus, private property and personal property do not co-exist. Your question, ISTM, relates to how it is decided in a socialist society what constitutes personal property.
Yes, which is why Doc Tor’s original comment about people being free to enjoy their personal property requires quite a lot of clarification. It sounds like he’s saying “you will be able to enjoy full use of all your possessions”, but for all we know that might be spin to hide the fact that the real meaning is “you will be able to enjoy full use of your toothbrush and other such trivial items, but anything bigger or that we determine society has an interest in will be taken into collective ownership”.
It’s important - fundamentally so - to know which statement we’re actually discussing.
Any other confected outrages to deal with while I'm briefly conscious?
Look, we could be here for months with 'well, what about this? What about that?' And I'm guessing that would absolutely suit some of you.
I'd rather not, and that you engaged with some modicum of good faith.
As a criterion for determining what is and isn't "personal property", "Does it have utility outside of being a home" is a pretty far cry from "If you can pick it up and move it".
It’s bait and switch. Get people to agree to your policies by saying they will protect their property, then suddenly reveal that you’re actually going to take away their second home/spare car/business/shareholdings/etc. because those things weren’t in the definition of “property” in the small print.
I’m also still very concerned that the definition of “personal property” includes an upper bound on how much of it any one person can own (which will probably be phrased as “how many toothbrushes do you need anyway?” or similar). And that that upper bound is considerably lower than a lot of people would like.
What one person considers a good life might be what another would consider a pretty rubbish life. Is it fair to impose the first persons standards on the second?
Building societies - yes, that's a good example of a distinct model. I guess many charities are similar ? A group of people form a club or association and contribute assets which are then owned by members collectively, and set the rules as to who else can be a member. With one option being that all customers are automatically members.
Is that like a club where the members decide that the condition for membership is place of residence ?
So what makes these models "socialist" and others not ?
Is everything socialist except one person owning as an individual ?
If a club sets the rule of membership as being that anyone can join but you have to contribute the same amount of money as existing members have already contributed (which has a certain justice to it), is that equivalent to shareholding ?
Seems to me, Doc, that you're trying to draw a hard line between what a person possesses for their own use and enjoyment and what they trade with others.
I own a number of apple trees. I think you've clarified that the issue for you is not whether I can pick them up and move them, but whether I eat the apples or sell the apples.
So it's not that you want the government to own/control everything. It's that you want the government to own/control all exchange between people.
The government does control all exchange between people. It does so reactively (when people get hurt, agreements broken) but even in the realm of libertarian fantasy governments still enforce contracts.
Are you privy to Marvin's financial affairs, or just making a general assumption that no-one ever pays off a mortgage?
Well done on completely derailing the thread by the way. I'd have never bet on you as the one to do it.
You're right - nobody here is saying they shouldn't.
But that's not control; that's offering a service. Individuals can trade without a legally-binding contract. That they have the option to make an enforceable contract increases rather than restricting their choices.
I think this reflects different interpretations of the notion of "rights".
To those of us who lean to starboard, rights are synonymous with freedoms. To say that you have a right to free speech, privacy, practice of religion etc is to say that the state does wrong when it makes and enforces laws that prevent or prohibit these. This is rights against interference by the state.
To those who lean to port, rights means not letting poverty prohibit access having to certain goods. Their concept of rights is about stuff like rights to health, housing, education. Seen not so much as imposing on the state the negative duty not to prevent people from acquiring medicines, dwellings, teaching, but more a positive duty to provide these. This is rights to stuff from the state.
Seems like many socialists would prohibit private health provision, private education, private rented housing (*). In the interests of improving public provision. And see this as entirely consistent with their notion of rights.
So no, interest in "human rights" as a topic does not mean that socialists aren't authoritarian. Because the concept of rights is interpretable in an authoritarian way.
(*) some would say that they wouldn't prohibit these things. Just so tightly regulate them as to make them indistinguishable from the government version, thereby removing any effective choice...
Yes, governments can be a force for good. I'm not an anarchist. But the line between good government and bad government does not coincide with the line between governments that are voted in (and can therefore be voted out) and those that are not.
You've said that part of the issue is that propaganda works. To admit that is to admit that what people can be persuaded to vote for is not the critical factor in thinking about what good government is.
Voting can be an idol, just as legality can be an idol.
Not in England and Wales they can’t. They may not put anything in writing, but if there is offer and acceptance and a valuable consideration then Common Law or statute will make it legally enforceable, unless there is a requirement for it to be in writing.
I don't think I follow this at all.
Firstly "Individuals can trade without a legally-binding contract. That they have the option to make an enforceable contract increases rather than restricting their choices." This is not really true. Of course, trade can take place without some sort of legal framework but ultimately there then exist risks to one or other party which mean that they potentially have to use force to prevent the other party from defrauding them. It's worth remembering (and is so often ignored in terms of safety regulations) that it's not just about the occasions when enforcement is needed. It's also about the fact that many actors would step out of line if enforcement did not exist. So, if there is a stat like say only 1% of employees ever go to an employment tribunal* therefore most of us never benefit from this service would be a completely fallacious conclusion. Some (many?) of us benefit from the fact that our employers know that such an enforcement body exists and thus they can be held to account. The vast majority of trade uses currency. Actual bartering is rare. Thus there has to be some agreement on what makes the currency. Historically, this was a standardised weight/measure, now days it's very much about the government-based official currency.
Trade is possible without legally enforceable contracts but it would be very different from how we trade right now.
[*I've no idea what the actual stat is and can't be bothered to look. This is one I just made up for the example].
Secondly, your characterization of my (and other) Lefties view of Rights is both wrong and completely contrary to what I stated in my post. The whole point about Human Rights is that they are about freedom - especially freedom from the State. I reiterate my point that the HRA is unique in that it only applies to the government itself. Thus the idea that being socialist means being authoritarian just doesn't follow. Moreover as a rule, telling someone what they believe rather than listening to them telling you what they actually think is not a particularly effective debating technique.
Thirdly - and this is of fundamental importance - Good laws increase freedom. Hence the idea that to be anti-state is to be pro-freedom is deeply flawed. (Of course, bad laws decrease freedom, that's obvious but doesn't undermine what I've just said).
Fourthly you have argued against me by restating my argument. One I've made here and elsewhere that democracy doesn't automatically work. I believe very strongly in constitutional limits that prevent the tyranny of the majority against the minority but that's slightly beside the point. Democracy is the best form of accountability in governing the world has yet found. Nowhere have I said that democracy = good government. But I am a democratic socialist - I believe in the democratic process, in holding governments to account and persuading people to vote for socialist policies that benefit us all.
What exactly are you trying to say?
AFZ
Socialist policies don't benefit us all.
Upthread somewhere I argued for policies that do benefit us all (because they offer a net benefit and the winners compensate the losers so that everybody gains). None of the socialists here agreed that this is how things should be done.
The characteristically-socialist policy that was also discussed is redistribution of income - taking money away from some people to give to others for no reason other than it satisfies somebody's notion of how things ought to be. This is not looking for win-win outcomes that benefit us all; it is the very opposite.
Democracy is a good thing. And it is an aid to accountability. But possibly less effective than some form of judicial review process which holds government to doing only what the constitution says that government may do.
Doc Tor seems to believe that governments may do whatever the democratic process lets them get away with. I disagree.
I'm glad that you disagree too.
But your professed socialism leads me to doubt that you wish to protect all minorities from the malice of the majority.
So once again you'd rather tell me what I think rather than listening to what I've said.
Enlightened self-interest and the costs of inequality are just two concepts mentioned.
Moreover the idea that the rich are a minority in need of special protection (when we've already discussed how wealth leads to massively disproportionate power) is plain silly.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who had this reaction. A "contract" is not "a fancy document that a lawyer drew up".
Firstly, it was @Marvin the Martian derailing, not me.
Secondly, are you contending that someone with a mortgage on their home owns it in the same way that someone who doesn't? What do you think the role of the bank is in that situation? Is it an unreasonable assumption that a mortgage is in play here? Why the snark?
Thirdly, a more general point. The deliberate and wilful misinterpretation of personal and private property is more your bias than anything I've said. It's not that the state will somehow seize your private property. It's that it gets regulated differently. That's all.
Russ may even get to keep his apples. Who knows?
I'll contend that, if you like. A mortgage is a specific example of a loan secured against a piece of property that I own. If I didn't own my house, I couldn't secure a loan against it. It's not a hire-purchase agreement, the bank doesn't own my house, and the bank generally tries quite hard not to end up in the situation where it has to own my house, because it really doesn't want a house - it wants money.
Depending on what, exactly ?
On whether I can muster a coalition of like-minded people to out vote those who want to take them away from me ?
Or on whether or not you judge that the sum total of human happiness is greater that way ?
That "may" expresses your rejection of the notion of a moral right to property.
But you're not coming clean about what you'd put in its place.
On your first account each apple is mine because I can pick it up and carry it. On your second account it's mine ad long as I intend to eat it, but as soon as I intend to barter it to my neighbour for her surplus eggs then it becomes a different category of property which rightfully belongs to the government.
But apparently I'm supposed to take it on authority that this distinction is real and well-founded...
And the reason it is called a mortgage and not a loan is because normally a lender WOULD take possession of the collateral during the period of the loan.
Most car loans are just personal loans though aren't they? They're not usually secured. Secured loans on cars are at the shabbier end of the market - log book loans as they are known.
Interesting question.
I'd say that there are at base two different models of how limited resources are allocated - the planned economy and the market economy.
Planetary resource limits are hard constraints. But those constraints don't dictate any particular distribution.
Seems like the characteristics of planned and market economies aren't all that different in a situation of hard constraints than they are in a situation where resources are seen as expandable at a significant cost (which you might call soft constraints).
In other words it's greenwash. An excuse for those who like to frame the issue in terms of distribution - who has how much or how little and is this a Good Thing ?
Planned economies are a tried-and-failed idea.
There are real issues in the area of environmental economics. But planet-mandated maximum wealth limits aren't one of them.
We'd all do much better thinking about how "polluter pays" can be implemented. How us humans have grown so numerous and so resource-consuming that a market that ignores environmental externalities sends the wrong price-signals. And how to correct that. That's the real green issue.
Are they? Seems to me that the problem with Stalin's 5 year plans wasn't that they failed but that success came at too high a price. A planned economy is what won WW2. A planned economy is what put China in the global position it is in today.