Socialism

[Xiahou]

Which is why I believe the whole world needs to run under one system. Then you wouldn't have that problem.

I think that sums up the mentality perfectly. What about productive "rich" people who don't want to be part of the system? Easy, you grow the system until it's one they can't leave.

As to what socialism is, the best and simplest definition I've seen is that it's government control/ownership of the means of production. There are many different flavors of socialism, but that's something they all have in common.

[HoreTore]

As to what socialism is, the best and simplest definition I've seen is that it's government control/ownership of the means of production. There are many different flavors of socialism, but that's something they all have in common.

Hah, wrong. Does "worker owned factories" say anything to you?

[Tribesman]

As to what socialism is, the best and simplest definition I've seen is that it's government control/ownership of the means of production.

So that means that every country is socialist then .

[Xiahou]

So that means that every country is socialist then .

To varying degrees, yes.

[HoreTore]

To varying degrees, yes.

Or.... and I know this is a radical suggestion, but... Maybe your definition is....wrong...?

[Privateerkev]

So that means that every country is socialist then.

I'd argue that many countries have components of socialism. Many have state control of something. It might be roads, schools, healthcare, army, ect...

I think that sums up the mentality perfectly. What about productive "rich" people who don't want to be part of the system? Easy, you grow the system until it's one they can't leave.

Exactly. Why should some get rich while many starve?

Leaving the world a patchwork of nation-states allows a "race to the bottom." Industry seeks out the cheapest labor and loosest laws. Countries that want industry to come to them try to cheapen their labor and loosen their laws. They each keep trying to outdo the other. Many are left without a living wage, clean water, medicine, shelter, or freedom from oppression.

[Don Corleone]

You're an avowed socialist, Hore Tore, which makes you something of an expert on the subject. What is your definition?

[rotorgun]

That might be the "belief" but the practice of pure capitalism is to expand regardless of the consequences. Someone who is a pure capitalist would demand that the person on the street work for his meal. And if he didn't, then he deserved what he got. You are obviously not a "pure" capitalist and I would guess that few people are.

If you believe in limiting the expansion of capital or in redistributing the wealth in any way, then you are simply not a pure capitalist but someone who believes in a hybrid model. Your posts suggest that you believe in a hybrid.

Let us forget for a moment all these concepts of capitalism or socialism. Assume that you are a mayor of a small village. Many types of people live in your village, for the most part all happy and productive. Also living there are some no account do nothings that roam the streets everyday begging for money or food. The first time such a person comes by and asks you personally for money you, being a good mayor and a philanthropist, generously give some thinking......it's only until the poor creature gets on his feet. Unfortunately, you see him continuing to ask for some money for a whole week. Later a whole month goes by, and still he begs....and people continue to help him. This is not an elderly man or a person with some disability, but a young, vibrant, probably virile person perfectly able to perform some kind of work. Do you really think that such a person deserves to have you go before the village council and demand that we support him? If you were my mayor, I would vote you out of office quicker than you could say welfare.

I would like to say that I am not opposed to your idea of a hybrid government. I am not entirely against socialism as long as there are some checks and balances.

PS: Have to bow out for a little while to go to my Doctor's appointment which my insurance (which I pay for in part, and part by my employer) will pay for.....that is to say unless you want to pay for Privateerkev?

[HoreTore]

You're an avowed socialist, Hore Tore, which makes you something of an expert on the subject. What is your definition?

*points to posts above*

[Privateerkev]

Let us forget for a moment all these concepts of capitalism or socialism. Assume that you are a mayor of a small village. Many types of people live in your village, for the most part all happy and productive. Also living there are some no account do nothings that roam the streets everyday begging for money or food. The first time such a person comes by and asks you personally for money you, being a good mayor and a philanthropist, generously give some thinking......it's only until the poor creature gets on his feet. Unfortunately, you see him continuing to ask for some money for a whole week. Later a whole month goes by, and still he begs....and people continue to help him. This is not an elderly man or a person with some disability, but a young, vibrant, probably virile person perfectly able to perform some kind of work. Do you really think that such a person deserves to have you go before the village council and demand that we support him? If you were my mayor, I would vote you out of office quicker than you could say welfare.

I do not see your analogy as accurate to the current world situation. Again I will state that there should be social controls and rules. What your describing is a collective action problem. To solve it will require almost everyone to give up something so everyone gets something.

Yes, if someone tries very hard, they will find a way to get out of working. Ironically it will take work to avoid working. But that is fine with me.

I would like to say that I am not opposed to your idea of a hybrid government. I am not entirely against socialism as long as there are some checks and balances.

I am not in favor of a hybrid system. I am simply willing to settle in order to get some of what I want. Because something is better than nothing. I am not so bound to a pure socialist utopian vision, that I am willing to discount progressive social change.

PS: Have to bow out for a little while to go to my Doctor's appointment which my insurance (which I pay for in part, and part by my employer) will pay for.....that is to say unless you want to pay for Privateerkev?

Your getting close to erecting a straw man there. I am very much in favor of a government run healthcare system. That would not mean me taking money directly out of my wallet to pay for your doctor visit. But it would mean me paying taxes to pay for your doctor visit. Your health is not only important to me as a moral issue, but it is actually in my best interests if your healthy.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I found this quote interesting and relevant:

The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution.

[Privateerkev]

I found this quote interesting and relevant:

That quote is also making an assumption about our convictions which I do not agree with.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

That quote is also making an assumption about our convictions which I do not agree with.

It's generally known as "Soviet Russia." Her point is that once the revolution is achieved, the state does not want to change.

[Privateerkev]

It's generally known as "Soviet Russia." Her point is that once the revolution is achieved, the state does not want to change.

Which unfortunately ends up replacing one oppressive system with another.

I'd like to think such a thing is avoidable.

[CountArach]

It's generally known as "Soviet Russia." Her point is that once the revolution is achieved, the state does not want to change.

I thought we had already determined that they were in no way similar to modern socialists?

Thanks for defending us Privateerkev, you are doing a great job.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I'd like to think such a thing is avoidable.

Theoretically. However, socialist-only states do not have a very good track record in this regard.

Socialism, in theory, isn't necessarily oppressive. We don't need to establish that, it's true. The problem I have with socialism is that practically, there are better ways. I've always considered socialism "feel-good politics."

[Privateerkev]

Thanks for defending us Privateerkev, you are doing a great job.

thank you,

I'm, just trying to present a point of view. A thread pops up asking us to define socialism and people immediately come on here to attack the idea.

[Viking]

Socialism = state control over the market
Capitalism = private control over the market
Communism = socialism + authoritarianism (strong intelligence agencies used to control the population etc.)

We should also keep in mind that there is a difference between the economic system and the political system. The economic system is the "command economy" that I stated earlier. Where the political system is the idea of "more democracy". The more each person has a say, the better.

People bringing up Stalin and others are missing the point. North Korea is technically called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Though they are not Democratic, they are not run by the people, and they are not a Republic. All because a system is called a certain name, does not mean that it holds the values attributed to that name.

Hurrah! It's the y-axis so many are not aware of; politics come on a two-dimensional map (as opposed to the one-dimensional left vs. right).

[HoreTore]

Theoretically. However, socialist-only states do not have a very good track record in this regard.

I'm sorry, but again you only show confusion. The countries you call "socialist-only" are leninist states(or later, maoist, who also based is theory on lenin). Leninism is a brand of socialism, but nothing more than that. Using it against socialism is really like using polygamism against christianity because it's practiced by Warren Jeff.

Socialism didn't just evolve through Lenin, a bunch of socialists didn't agree with him, and took their own path to the communist utopia, like the social democracy you find in western europe. It's still socialist, but not leninist. Heck, most of them have even discarded most of Marx' theories.

[Xiahou]

Or.... and I know this is a radical suggestion, but... Maybe your definition is....wrong...?

Why? Most every country has some socialist aspects to it, and every country has capitalist characteristics as well. 100% of either just doesn't happen- the question is: what's the right mix?

For me, it's as little state or collective control as possible- some will be unavoidable, but it needs to be kept to a minimum to preserve individual freedom.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I'm sorry, but again you only show confusion. The countries you call "socialist-only" are leninist states(or later, maoist, who also based is theory on lenin). Leninism is a brand of socialism, but nothing more than that. Using it against socialism is really like using polygamism against christianity because it's practiced by Warren Jeff.

The definitions of a socialist state:

In strictly speaking, any real or hypothetical state organized along the principles of socialism may be called a socialist state. The term socialist republic is used by those socialists who wish to emphasize that they favour a republican form of government. Furthermore, since socialism purports to represent the interests of the working class, many socialists refer to a state organized according to their principles as a workers' state.
According to Marxism, socialism is a stage of social and economic development that will replace capitalism, and will in turn be replaced by communism. Thus, in Marxist terms, a socialist state is a state that has abolished capitalism and is moving towards communism.
Several past and present states have claimed to follow some form of Marxist ideology, usually Marxism-Leninism. They referred to themselves as socialist states and since 1970s as states of real socialism. The first example was the Soviet Union, which was proclaimed a "socialist state" in its 1936 Constitution and a subsequent 1977 one. Another well-known example is the People's Republic of China, which is a "socialist state" according to its 1982 Constitution of the People's Republic of China. In the West, such states are commonly known as "communist states" (though they do not use this term to refer to themselves). A socialist state may be a country that uses the term "socialist" or "socialist republic" in its official name, constitution or the name or constitution of the ruling party, regardless of the actual political and economic system it has in practice. Examples include the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, and the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.
Because there are several different branches of socialism, a country's claim to the label of "socialist state" or "socialist republic" is almost always disputed by some branch. Indeed, there are many socialists who strongly oppose certain (or all) self-proclaimed socialist republics. Trotskyists, for instance, are particularly known for their opposition to Communist states, which they do not view as adhering to communism at all, but rather to Stalinism.

While I do not dispute that certain elements of socialism are possible or necessary to carry out effectively while maintaining fairness and freedom, socialism in itself...

[Incongruous]

Socialism is an idea very much close to that of Anarchism, both disagree with the Liberal belief that property is sacrosanct and a must for the liberty of men. However they differ in that, whereas socialism curbs individual rights (according to Kropotkin) in order to achieve it's goal of a classless society, Anarchism is something which will happen naturally at the end of capitalism, the final stage of mans search for liberty and freedom. In this form Kropotkin claimed some ideological realtionship with Liberals. However socialists like Marx tended to view with the scorn that much older of underclasses, the peasant and the poor farmer, workers were much more heroic. But its meaning has been changed over the years. Just as Liberalism has been reformed beyond all recognition, no longer a light for individual liberty it has been worked into simply another way to make the rich richer and keep the poor down.

In the end its just another ideology, and failed to stand up to reality.

[CountArach]

The definitions of a socialist state:

While I do not dispute that certain elements of socialism are possible or necessary to carry out effectively while maintaining fairness and freedom, socialism in itself...

That's a textbook definition of what Socialism used to be, but now Socialism has recreated itself and is less of a transitory stage towards Communism and more of an ideology that has its own goal and its own way of achieving classlessness. It still retains some elements of its Marxist roots (Such as the class war), but it has shed a lot of its former ideals, including the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

The spectrum of Socialism is so broad so that it can include people who believe in those ideals, as well as those who reject them (You can still be a socialist without believing in class warfare and you can still be socialist and believe in the Dictatorship of the Proletariat).

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Can you really say socialism recreated itself? It's a pretty broad movement that not all of it has swung towards the social democrats.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

In the end its just another ideology, and failed to stand up to reality.

This post (or at least this sentence) has just been endorsed by THE MARTIAN.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Capitalism funnels money to a select few by exploiting cheap labor. It is an engine for economic growth but it requires growth to expand for the rest of time. This simply can not be sustained forever.

That's nonsensical, I'm afraid.

Capitalism operates off of 3 assumptions;

1.) That there is an unlimited supply of resources

Wow, that's wrong. The whole point of capitalism is that there are limited resources of everything - goods, labor, capital, and you have to decide what you want to prioritize.

2.) That there is an unlimited number of markets

I don't see how you can leap to that conclusion.

3.) That any enviromental damage can be repaired.

Again, wrong. Perhaps we should look and see whether the Soviets or the USA had the better environmental record.

No, I do not trust the market to distribute food.

It is protectionism and moronic subsidies for biofuels that's led to this crisis. Europe and the USA have large amounts of protection for agriculture, and large subsidies designed to take fields from growing food to growing less efficient than crude oil fuel so some yuppies can feel good about themselves. The question is, why oh why would we trust something so vital as the world's food supply to a bunch of bickering idiot governments?

I do not believe you should pay for what you need. It just seems wrong to me.

Food does not rain down like mana from heavens. Why should the people who grow food not be compensated? It's ok to steal it if we need it? That's what not paying for something is called. Instead, should farmers, and everyone, not be compensated according to the most just system available, capitalism?

Capitalism - that is, people being free to live as they want - provides the greatest benefit to everyone. If you cannot decide what wage you will work for, or what money you will accept for a good, then you are no better than a slave.

CR

[rotorgun]

I do not see your analogy as accurate to the current world situation. Again I will state that there should be social controls and rules. What your describing is a collective action problem. To solve it will require almost everyone to give up something so everyone gets something.

I agree with you in part here. I see nothing wrong with such cooperative measures, as long as there are some safeguards to prevent the wanton abuse of the public good.

I am not in favor of a hybrid system. I am simply willing to settle in order to get some of what I want. Because something is better than nothing. I am not so bound to a pure socialist utopian vision, that I am willing to discount progressive social change.

I misunderstood you than when you asked another person earlier if they would consider a hybrid form of government. It implied to me that you were so inclined as well. I am heartened to see that you are capable of compromise. That is the essence of true freedom IMO-to be able to sacrifice some of your desires to enable the greater good to go forward. I too am in favor of social change, and agree with some that all governments are "socialistic" to some degree. I just don't understand it as well as others, and fear some of its more communistic approach.

Your getting close to erecting a straw man there. I am very much in favor of a government run healthcare system. That would not mean me taking money directly out of my wallet to pay for your doctor visit. But it would mean me paying taxes to pay for your doctor visit. Your health is not only important to me as a moral issue, but it is actually in my best interests if your healthy.

But isn't paying taxes taking money directly out of your wallet as well? Unwarranted taking of money is called thievery is it not? Mandating me to do so to pay for benefits that others refuse to help subsidize, but still enjoy, is nothing much more than state sponsored and condoned stealing in my opinion.
I was only making a bit of a joke with you about having to pay for my Doctor's visit. Thanks though for your kindness in thinking of my health as a moral issue, but I still wouldn't want to hold you responsible for my health. That is my family's concern, or perhaps the concern of my closest friends, but I feel it is a private matter for me to take care of if possible.

I wish I could do more to help define Socialism with you, but I don't understand what recommends it. I shall have to follow this post more objectively I see.

I do enjoy the intellectual argument however, and mean nothing personal by my difference of opinion.

[HoreTore]

The definitions of a socialist state:



While I do not dispute that certain elements of socialism are possible or necessary to carry out effectively while maintaining fairness and freedom, socialism in itself...

Read that article again, and spot the glaring mistake in it. It focuses solely on those states who simple call themselves socialists. A country can call itself whatever they like last I checked, it doesn't have to have anything to do with facts, like North Korea calling themselves democratic...

Again, the states mentioned are leninist states. Blaming them on socialism as a whole is ridiculous. There are better examples, like Norway. Peaceful and democratic, and with around 40 years of almost complete socialist control, must be considered a socialist state...

[Banquo's Ghost]

It's amusing to me how something as fundamental as definition of terms can be so abused.

As far as I can see, the definition of socialism has been best expressed so far by Xiahou - with one tiny mistake, derived perhaps from his dislike.

Socialism is a political and economic theory of social organisation that advocates that the means of production, distribution and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Community not government.

Whilst most experiments in socialism have made the mistake of concentrating largely on state control, this is actually antithetical to the aims of socialism and leads to the tyrannies of Leninism and Stalinism. This is unsurprising as the most influential writer on socialism saw it as a mere transitional process towards communism (which does require state control albeit in the belief that the state would wither away eventually - oops). Socialism is inherently extremely democratic and requires a high level of subsidiarity and personal responsibility.

In this, it may well be too idealistic to exist - in the same way that belief in unregulated yet responsible capitalism has proven beyond the reach of mankind.

[Incongruous]

The whole thing about the Marxist theory (You can seperate this from Socialism if you wish) was that social change would have to brought about by men, not nature. Whatever you want to say about community, this occurance, it was accepted, had to brought on by the few in charge.

Already by '80's the socialists were being lambasted by Kropotkin for their wish to curb liberty in order to reform society.
This is the greatest problem with scoialist thought, the empowerment of the sate, which was allowed by this flaw in ideology. However it was the only realistic way for it to ever be enacted, I mean socialism was seen as a second rate threat to established society compared to Anarchism. Those champagne sipping middle class idiots were seeing their idology going down the drain. They had to do something, vile supression of everyone else was the only way in a revolution.
Whatever you may think about the ideology, its supporters were first rate pragmatists and political killers. You can apply this to any of the great ideological leaders, ever.

The fact is you simply cannot think up a nice neat way of governing the world from behind a pile of books in the library while sipping at a hot drink.
You can apply this one to trying to run the economy, its just utter rubbish.