Socialism

[LittleGrizzly]

I have come to the conclusion recently that the word socailism has recently undergone a big evolution, back in the day socialism was middle bit between a country turning communist from a capitilist system, in more modern times a socailist (or at least in the uk) was a left winger but not someone looking to change to a communist state.

Recently socialism has spread to cover the entire political spectrum, you can be a nazi, a communist or a democrat and you come under the huge umbrella of socialism (thinking about it as just a straight line left to right then everyone is a socailist)

So i am intrested in your definition of socailism, i feel a few people just label whoever they disagree with as a socialist, which is obviously incorrect.

[CountArach]

Socialist as used by Socialists (at least myself and those I know) has come to mean much the same as it used to, except without revolutionary thought. Some now doubt that Communism is possible (Again, like myself) and instead believe in something much more closely resembling State Capitalism or at least a very watered down 'Socialism'.

As for labelling people, that is a tool used by the right because they mistakenly choose to associate Socialism with Leninism and Stalinism.

[PBI]

The reason people try to equate socialists with Nazis is the fact that the Nazis were supposedly "national socialists".

I feel this is being rather disingenuous however. Rather like using some nasty third world dictatorship with a terrible human rights record which happens to be called the "Democratic People's Republic of ..." to equate Republicans, Democrats or indeed people at large with those human rights abuses.

[Fragony]

Equal distribution of misery by a totalitarian and repressive government. Not the idea behind it but the inevitable conclusion and that is all that counts.

[CountArach]

Equal distribution of misery by a totalitarian and repressive government. Not the idea behind it but the inevitable conclusion and that is all that counts.

Socialism is tied in with minority rights of all kinds and hence is in no way totalitarianism. I swear we have had this argument before though...

[Fragony]

Socialism is tied in with minority rights of all kinds and hence is in no way totalitarianism. I swear we have had this argument before though...

Ya but men is not equal, gonna take a lot of government to pretend they are. Big government will always grow greater loyalty for their own organisation rather to their people, same for all big organisations, always growing into totalitarism secrecy and lies. Gonna take a lot of money though, hence the equal distribution of misery. In short, it sucks.

[LittleGrizzly]

Equal distribution of misery by a totalitarian and repressive government. Not the idea behind it but the inevitable conclusion and that is all that counts.


The inevitable conclusion of what ? Mine and CA's socailist beliefs ? the socailist inbetween described by Marx ? or are we talking stalinism ?

[Privateerkev]

The way I understand Socialism is that it is Communism without the Revolution. Basically it is public control of the economy or "command economy" in economic terms.

Believes in "evolution" instead of "revolution". Basically Socialism and Communism believe in the same end but disagree with the means to get there.

The common form of Socialism is the "Social Democrat" which believes in moving towards Socialism from within the current Democratic system. Basically there is a party and that party tries to get it's people elected so they can then push a more Socialist agenda.

As for beliefs, I like the quote: "From all according to their abilities, to those according to their needs."

It's the idea that we are all in this together. And only together are we strongest. It abandons the "bourgeoise individualism" that has been cultivated over the past couple hundred years.

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.

[Fragony]

Equal distribution of misery by a totalitarian and repressive government. Not the idea behind it but the inevitable conclusion and that is all that counts.


The inevitable conclusion of what ? Mine and CA's socailist beliefs ? the socailist inbetween described by Marx ? or are we talking stalinism ?

The whole idea that we should persuit equality. That is the inherent flaw of socialism, it's building the math around a false truth.

[Privateerkev]

The whole idea that we should persuit equality. That is the inherent flaw of socialism, it's building the math around a false truth.

But many of us see equality as a belief rather than a false truth.

[Fragony]

But many of us see equality as a belief rather than a false truth.

That is why (imvho) socialism should be treated as a religion just like christianity and islam.

[HoreTore]

The term "Socialism" isn't a specific term, it's an umbrella term which includes stuff from Marxist-leninism to social democrats(nulab should be disqualified though).

At it's heart, socialism is best defined as the ideology of the workers movement. But most big movements splinter into various factions, like the labour movement did, like when Lenin formed Komintern and split the movement hard. But every parti or ideology with their roots in the labour movement can perfectly well be termed as socialist. Some are revolutionary, some are reformists, some are enviromentalist, some industrialists, nationalist or internationalist and so on and so on.

But parties or ideologies without roots in the labour movement should not be called socialists. Like nazism(army roots), or capitalist parties even though they may favour a bigger government.

[Privateerkev]

That is why (imvho) socialism should be treated as a religion just like christianity and islam.

Well, if religion can be the belief system of a theocracy, then equality can be the belief system of socialism.

[rotorgun]

As for beliefs, I like the quote: "From all according to their abilities, to those according to their needs."

It's the idea that we are all in this together. And only together are we strongest. It abandons the "bourgeoise individualism" that has been cultivated over the past couple hundred years.

This is a very noble notion. My only beef with it (socialism) is who's going to pay for the "all according to their needs"? A system that mandates those who are productive to care for those who are lazy is another matter entirely. This is the idea that many in the United states oppose about socialism. I am not against charity and government programs to help people. I am against government "handouts" that enable some people to sit home and do nothing but have children while the rest of us get to pay for it.

As for "bourgeoise individualism," it is such individualism which encourages initiative and inventiveness. One of the characteristics of the former Soviet Union was that it tended to stifle these qualities. If, as you say socialism is communism without the revolution, than I would be very leery of going down the path.

[PanzerJaeger]

True socialists would prefer to be communists, but understand that it is not economically viable. So they work within the capitalist system to promote the virtues of communism -redistribution of wealth, economic equality, big government - while accepting that certain free market principles must be adhered to.

[Fragony]

Well, if religion can be the belief system of a theocracy, then equality can be the belief system of socialism.

Sure can and sure does, they even tend to develop in exactly the same way, idolation of leaders, excommunication of those that have doubts, religious police to keep eveyone in check and in almost every case a bloody inquisition. It's just flawed.

[Privateerkev]

Sure can and sure does, they even tend to develop in exactly the same way, idolation of leaders, excommunication of those that have doubts, religious police to keep eveyone in check and in almost every case a bloody inquisition. It's just flawed.

Any system can be exploited. Capitalism certainly is. As for excommunication, just try to live a subsistence lifestyle in a market economy. It isn't impossible but it is quite difficult.

This is a very noble notion. My only beef with it (socialism) is who's going to pay for the "all according to their needs"? A system that mandates those who are productive to care for those who are lazy is another matter entirely. This is the idea that many in the United states oppose about socialism. I am not against charity and government programs to help people. I am against government "handouts" that enable some people to sit home and do nothing but have children while the rest of us get to pay for it.

As for "bourgeoise individualism," it is such individualism which encourages initiative and inventiveness. One of the characteristics of the former Soviet Union was that it tended to stifle these qualities. If, as you say socialism is communism without the revolution, than I would be very leery of going down the path.

The words "work" and "laziness" are cultural constructions based on real actions (or inaction). Work used to mean an expenditure of calories. Now it is bound up with cultural meaning. It's actually a value now with real moral currency. Selling your labor power for wages is now seen as the only real "work" out there. If you don't do this, you are deemed "lazy". Somehow the person who stays home and takes care of an elderly parent or child is seen as "not working".

Socialism attempts to redefine these terms. Work is something that is done for the greater collective whole. As for laziness, I say it is the price you pay. I will gladly accept that some "lazy" people will mooch off of the system if it means everyone who is hungry gets fed. No system is perfect. To reject an entire system just because some will exploit it seems to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[Fragony]

At a certain moment the whole body begins to digest itselve just to keep running. Here the rich are leaving en masse, they don't want to hand over their money anymore, doesn't get you any more government afterall. When the money leaves all is an empty shell that shell being the idea.

[Privateerkev]

At a certain moment the whole body begins to digest itselve just to keep running. Here the rich are leaving en masse, they don't want to hand over their money anymore, doesn't get you any more government afterall. When the money leaves all is an empty shell that shell being the idea.

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

[rotorgun]

Any system can be exploited. Capitalism certainly is. As for excommunication, just try to live a subsistence lifestyle in a market economy. It isn't impossible but it is quite difficult.

The words "work" and "laziness" are cultural constructions based on real actions (or inaction). Work used to mean an expenditure of calories. Now it is bound up with cultural meaning. It's actually a value now with real moral currency. Selling your labor power for wages is now seen as the only real "work" out there. If you don't do this, you are deemed "lazy". Somehow the person who stays home and takes care of an elderly parent or child is seen as "not working".

Socialism attempts to redefine these terms. Work is something that is done for the greater collective whole. As for laziness, I say it is the price you pay. I will gladly accept that some "lazy" people will mooch off of the system if it means everyone who is hungry gets fed. No system is perfect. To reject an entire system just because some will exploit it seems to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

True, any system can and will be exploited; corruption is in the very nature of man. Come let us reason together, however. I was speaking of that "work" which we do for wages, not all "work" that we do. As for the "lazy" you refer to, I am addressing those who are capable of making an honest wage, but refuse to-depending on the benevolence of those who do. This takes resources away from being able to provide for those truly in need, such as "the person who stays home and takes care of an elderly parent or child" you say seen as "not working". I say that we must reform both systems and dedicate more resources to educating people to a better way of thinking. The "baby" you refer to is not a baby at all, but in most cases a perfectly healthy adult who wants to take a nice vacation at home while the rest of us pay for it. Do not presume to equate this concept as a lack of charitable sentiment on my part please.

PS: I hate to leave this fine discussion, but I must now go and perform some caloric output style work and cut my free loading grass.

[Fragony]

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

On a scale ranging from 1 to 10 how realistic do you think that is? See that is why socialism and socialists tend to freak me out. It's not an idea I am living on it's a planet. Not gonna happen until the martians attack.

[Privateerkev]

On a scale ranging from 1 to 10 how realistic do you think that is? See that is why socialism and socialists tend to freak me out. It's not an idea I am living on it's a planet. Not gonna happen until the martians attack.

I don't know how realistic it is. It is simply what I believe will be the best way to reorder society in a more fair and equitable manner. And I do realize that we are living on a planet. One tenet of Socialism is sustainability. Capitalism, taken to it's logicial conclusion, is actually unsustainable. Therefore I see free-market capitalist purists as rejecting reality. And I don't mean you because I don't know how far you wish to take Capitalism.

True, any system can and will be exploited; corruption is in the very nature of man. Come let us reason together, however. I was speaking of that "work" which we do for wages, not all "work" that we do. As for the "lazy" you refer to, I am addressing those who are capable of making an honest wage, but refuse to-depending on the benevolence of those who do. This takes resources away from being able to provide for those truly in need, such as "the person who stays home and takes care of an elderly parent or child" you say seen as "not working". I say that we must reform both systems and dedicate more resources to educating people to a better way of thinking. The "baby" you refer to is not a baby at all, but in most cases a perfectly healthy adult who wants to take a nice vacation at home while the rest of us pay for it. Do not presume to equate this concept as a lack of charitable sentiment on my part please.

I presumed no such thing. It is just that I have heard the "lazy people will not work" claim many times. Instead of arguing that they will indeed work, I rather redefine the term "work" and "lazy". I believe the real number of "lazy" people will be low. There are many social controls that are implemented to police "rules". Just try cutting in line and you'll see what I speak of. I am confident the same will happen to those who don't work, but can.

It is doubtful that there will be a "pure" system of any kind anyways. Most systems are "hybrids". Where people differ is what kind of hybrid to have. I rather push for as pure a system as possible where your posts suggest you want a hybrid. From that we can find common ground. It is a lot easier working with you than with someone who wants pure anarchy.

As for corruption being the "nature of man", I reject the idea that there is a human nature. Things are learned, relearned, and forgotten. Babies are not born with corruption. I believe corruption comes about because of a Hobbsian view of "if I don't do it, I'll be less safe/secure". It's not that people are innately corrupt, it's that they believe it is in their best interest to be corrupt.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Socialism is tied in with minority rights of all kinds and hence is in no way totalitarianism. I swear we have had this argument before though...

Bah, more socialist lies! The smallest minority is the individual, whom socialists trample over in every one of their policies.

And of course, capitalism is a much better engine for economic growth (in that it is an engine for growth, whereas socialism is not), which makes all people better off.

CR

[Fragony]

I don't know how realistic it is. It is simply what I believe will be the best way to reorder society in a more fair and equitable manner. And I do realize that we are living on a planet. One tenet of Socialism is sustainability. Capitalism, taken to it's logicial conclusion, is actually unsustainable. Therefore I see free-market capitalist purists as rejecting reality. And I don't mean you because I don't know how far you wish to take Capitalism.

Fair enough. As for me (sorry for OT), I don't believe in any mutual cause or direction. Government should do the absolute basic, sovereignity, safety (not even necesary necesarily) and imo they are doing poorly enough just handling that.

[Privateerkev]

Bah, more socialist lies! The smallest minority is the individual, whom socialists trample over in every one of their policies.

And of course, capitalism is a much better engine for economic growth (in that it is an engine for growth, whereas socialism is not), which makes all people better off.

CR

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.

Capitalism operates off of 3 assumptions;

1.) That there is an unlimited supply of resources

2.) That there is an unlimited number of markets

3.) That any enviromental damage can be repaired.

Once you knock even one of these pegs out, Capitalism becomes unsustainable. If you try to fix one of these assumptions, you no longer have pure Capitalism but instead you have a hybrid.

If you have a hybrid, you have to figure out what ratio of Capitalism/Socialism to have.

[Fragony]

Capitalism operates off of 3 assumptions;

1.) That there is an unlimited supply of resources

2.) That there is an unlimited number of markets

3.) That any enviromental damage can be repaired.

Who told you that? That is simply not true, capitalism is based on the principle of mutual benefit from economic activity with as little interference as possible. If you see someone starving in the street and you give him something to eat that doesn't make you a socialist, just a normal person with a heart in his chest instead of a frozen microwavemeal.

edit, back to religion, we are all sinners at heart?

[Privateerkev]

Who told you that? That is simply not true, capitalism is based on the principle of mutual benefit from economic activity with as little interference as possible. If you see someone starving in the street and you give him something to eat that doesn't make you a socialist, just a normal person with a heart in his chest instead of a frozen microwavemeal.

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.

[Fragony]

Your posts suggest that you believe in a hybrid.

Every extreme is wrong you always have to find the balance, but I don't think that doing the good thing is something that should be regulated by anyone, most of all the government because governments tend to do poorly at everything they do, they have the job and what they are supposed to be doing. Would you trust them with the distribution of food, the market does it much much better.

[Privateerkev]

Every extreme is wrong you always have to find the balance, but I don't think that doing the good thing is something that should be regulated by anyone, most of all the government because governments tend to do poorly at everything they do, they have the job and what they are supposed to be doing. Would you trust them with the distribution of food, the market does it much much better.

No, I do not trust the market to distribute food. I watch too many miss out on getting food when we can produce more than enough to feed everyone.

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

[HoreTore]

No, I do not trust the market to distribute food. I watch too many miss out on getting food when we can produce more than enough to feed everyone.

The current world situation is a good example. We lack food, and what does the market do? Do they focus on mass-producing as much as possible, to make sure that people can afford it? Nope, some of them even hold food back and wait for the price to increase even more. Meanwhile, millions of people are starving simply because they can't afford to buy enough food...