What is Socialism? (1 Viewer)

[274ina]

Equality of opportunity keeps getting thrown around in this thread but what does that actually mean?

Inequality is a bad thing but not always. Why do we all have to be equal? What is wrong in thinking that, for example, moral indiviuals are better than immoral people. Capitalism has driven me to seek an education for myself and land a good job as a chemist. I sought said education to have a better life for myself. There is no way in hell I would be a chemist if I wouldn't get any more out of that job than say any other low-skilled work. I wouldn't have suffered so much for my craft. If I could attain the same possesions (food, clothing, living, ect.) through easier means I would pursue those routs readily. Some people would become scientists solely to help others but they are the exception. Also, for anyone to suggest that my contribution to society is equal to a janitors is an insult. I worked far harder for my skill-set than them. I suppose this is my main problem with socialism, it gives far less incentive for hard work. What specific incentive does socialism provide that capitalism doesn't?

A test I have for socialism is this: Will their be force that is initiated on non-aggressing individuals? If the answer is yes than socialism is immoral.

Then your beloved Capitalism is immoral. they use force all the time. Like now on the peacful 99%.
And on any one that has the balls to demand a living wage.

 

[Meathead]

Then your beloved Capitalism is immoral. they use force all the time. Like now on the peacful 99%.
And on any one that has the balls to demand a living wage.

Our beloved capitalism dictates that people should be free to enjoy the fruits of their labor and that whinging and mediocrity does not merit reward. Common sense dictates that terms like "the 99%" is not only used by the ignorant to appeal to the ignorant, but is also simply sleazy populism.

 

[Paschendale]

Our beloved capitalism dictates that people should be free to enjoy the fruits of their labor and that whinging and mediocrity does not merit reward. Common sense dictates that terms like "the 99%" is not only used by the ignorant to appeal to the ignorant, but is also simply sleazy populism.

Except that the way it's actually worked out is that a few people enjoy the fruits of everyone's labor, and the vast majority get shortchanged.

 

[Mach]

The problem with democracy is that is means the majority imposing their will over the minority.

Why is that a problem though? What root reason, necessitates you claiming it's a problem? If you identify that, you can apply it elsewhere, and test your own consistency. (i.e. I will use it to test for your consistency, and I suspect you'll be inconsistent). Socialism in any reasonable form I've seen communicated, including your own, suffers the same flaw you claim is a problem with democracy.

I don't believe that capitalists are more likely to be immoral than socialists, or anyone else. I believe capitalists are wrong. That's the difference.

What a mess. Where is truth in all of this? Do you think capitalism is based on falsehoods? And if not, how would you be able to tell they are wrong, if reason requires the differentiate of truth from falsehoods? And then it follows, if it's based on falsehoods (necessary as you claim they are wrong!), you believe supporting falsehoods is moral?! What is this idea of morality you espouse that supports things that are wrong?

Like everyone else, I think that my beliefs are correct and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong.

Scientists believe that? Once there has been significant evidence mounted by everyone else, do most scientists persist they are correct and everyone is wrong?
Maybe if they aren't doing anything that can be validated as true...they can behave your way. Or maybe if they refuse to adhere to rules, such as in science, they can wiggle their way out of it. On what REASONS you believe something, is the critical part.

...Christian church and socialism was the voluntary pooling of resources, the pooling of labor, and sharing in the product, according to need. That is socialism in its truest, purest form: people voluntarily collectivizing their property and sharing in the result.

How is that need determined, precisely?

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

What happened to the OP and his mission to teach us all about Socialism?

 

[Meathead]

Except that the way it's actually worked out is that a few people enjoy the fruits of everyone's labor, and the vast majority get shortchanged.

That's pretty much the way socialism has worked out, but with much less fruit across the board.

 

[Ryanm]

In my own words:

Socialism is the concept that one accepts when they realize that the other inevitable alternative is the death of millions.

 

[Fletch]

Except that the way it's actually worked out is that a few people enjoy the fruits of everyone's labor, and the vast majority get shortchanged.

I will give you a chanc to defend this meaninless mantra by explaining to me how the crewmember at McDonalds is being 'shortchanged.' Or the technition at ATT. Or the delivery driver at Fedex. Or the mehanic at the local Ford dealership. Answer: they are not.

 

[Fletch]

In my own words:

Socialism is the concept that one accepts when they realize that the other inevitable alternative is the death of millions.

Right. Like the National Socialists or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics never harmed anyone.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Right. Like the National Socialists or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics never harmed anyone.

Nazism=socialism?
Please... Go on...

 

[RadicalModerate]

Not to be hyperbolic, but socialism, at it's heart, seems to be a inherent mistrust of free people and their actions.

No wonder it's an abandoned relic of the early 20th century. Socialism, in it's modern form, is a reaction against the supposed failures of industrial capitalism.

 

[Fletch]

Nazism=socialism?
Please... Go on...

I know that socialists like to pretend that Nazis and commies arent socialists, but they are. Fascists are on the right of the socialist spectrum and communists on the left. The differences between the two are superficial really and the fundamental principles behind each are identical--the power of the state or the collective superceeds that of the individual. That one allows nominal ownership of property and the other does not is not and overly important distinction in my view. You can go through life believing that socialists are the good guys if you like, but they arent now nor ever have been. Socialism is tyranny.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

I know that socialists like to pretend that Nazis and commies arent socialists, but they are. Fascists are on the right of the socialist spectrum and communists on the left. The differences between the two are superficial really and the fundamental principles behind each are identical--the power of the state or the collective superceeds that of the individual. That one allows nominal ownership of property and the other does not is not and overly important distinction in my view. You can go through life believing that socialists are the good guys if you like, but they arent now nor ever have been. Socialism is tyranny.

So tell me why the Nazis were socialists.....
Cool little speech and all but and you tell me why Nazis were socialists?

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

In my own words:

Socialism is the concept that one accepts when they realize that the other inevitable alternative is the death of millions.

In other words you are a tool? I mean only tools buy into that premise that you just made. What you are saying is that you chose A, because B in your opinion is bad. there simply was no logical reason to believe that A is good because you think B is bad. And even if we all agreed that B was bad (which we dont) there is still is no logical reason to determine A is good when you used this none definition for A.

Socialism is not good because you think that Capitalism is bad. You will have to do a lot better than that.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

So tell me why the Nazis were socialists.....
Cool little speech and all but and you tell me why Nazis were socialists?

Just let it go, please dont go into that whole waste of the time discussion. It wont serve any good he will still think that Nazis were Socialist no matter what you tell him. he will just ignore the entire historic record of Nazis fighting Socialism and the whole Hitler hated Stalin and Communism thing. No matter what he will end it with 'but Socialist was in the name.'

 

[Miguel17]

Why is that a problem though? What root reason, necessitates you claiming it's a problem? If you identify that, you can apply it elsewhere, and test your own consistency. (i.e. I will use it to test for your consistency, and I suspect you'll be inconsistent). Socialism in any reasonable form I've seen communicated, including your own, suffers the same flaw you claim is a problem with democracy.


What a mess. Where is truth in all of this? Do you think capitalism is based on falsehoods? And if not, how would you be able to tell they are wrong, if reason requires the differentiate of truth from falsehoods? And then it follows, if it's based on falsehoods (necessary as you claim they are wrong!), you believe supporting falsehoods is moral?! What is this idea of morality you espouse that supports things that are wrong?


Scientists believe that? Once there has been significant evidence mounted by everyone else, do most scientists persist they are correct and everyone is wrong?
Maybe if they aren't doing anything that can be validated as true...they can behave your way. Or maybe if they refuse to adhere to rules, such as in science, they can wiggle their way out of it. On what REASONS you believe something, is the critical part.


How is that need determined, precisely?

Sorry to respond so late. Haven't had the time to get on the DebatePolitics site for some time.

In terms of democracy, the problem I describe is not inherent to democracy. For example, if I disagree with the war in Afghanistan, but if the majority of Americans support it, then our war machine remains engaged in Afghanistan. This does not violate my rights, but if I am a homosexual, and the 90% (there are various estimates of the average gay and lesbian population of this country) who are heterosexual think it's alright to deprive me of equal rights, that is a violation of my rights which is in quite a different moral sphere as opposed to the Afghanistan War example. In certain cases, democracy is fair, but in other cases it can be tyrannical in the extreme.

I believe supporters of capitalism are wrong--that is, I think that there is a better system of government both in the theoretical and the practical forms. I'm not sure why you think that saying my opponents are wrong is such a radical statement on my part. I believe they are wrong--that does not mean they are all evil or immoral. Maybe they are misguided, maybe they are intelligent but have come to conclusions that I consider erroneous.

Your reference to scientists doesn't belong in the same category as political philosophy. For a scientist to prove gravity (that is, not to prove its infallibility but to prove that it best explains explains naturally occurring phenomena) is quite different from a political philosopher "proving" capitalism, socialism, or anything else. Surely you must recognize the inherent difference there. Unlike Marxists, I don't believe in "laws of History" and all that sort of thing. I believe the validity and functionality of a political philosophy can be demonstrated, but it's a complicated process and not nearly as simple or clean-cut as proving a physical scientific theory.

 

[Miguel17]

I know that socialists like to pretend that Nazis and commies arent socialists, but they are. Fascists are on the right of the socialist spectrum and communists on the left. The differences between the two are superficial really and the fundamental principles behind each are identical--the power of the state or the collective superceeds that of the individual. That one allows nominal ownership of property and the other does not is not and overly important distinction in my view. You can go through life believing that socialists are the good guys if you like, but they arent now nor ever have been. Socialism is tyranny.

Fascists and Nazis were not socialists. Sure, the Nazis called themselves "National Socialists," but we can reject this characterization. Socialism (not of the communist variety) was very popular in mainstream German politics in 1933, when lassez-faire capitalism had demonstrably failed. But the Nazis and their Fascist counterparts in Italy and elsewhere are best described (economically) as corporatists. The Nazis believed in collusion between plutocratic business interests and the government--but certainly not the collectivization of capital that is the essence of any socialist system.

You are right on a certain point--fascism and extreme state socialism share a disparaging of the rights and dignity of the individual. But I'm afraid the philosophy of socialism goes far beyond the narrow realm of Stalinism.

If you believe that socialists have never been the "good guys", you need to do more research into the history of socialism in this country. Throughout their history, socialists are the only ones (as opposed to conservatives and liberals) that have been consistently on the right side of the slavery debate, the non-white civil rights debate, the rights and equality of women, social security, welfare, the social safety net, labor and trade unions, and the rights of the LGBT community. If you don't believe me, compare the socialist parties' records of party platforms in the past century and a half, and compare it to that of the Democrats and the Republicans. You'll no doubt find a new respect for socialists.

 

[Miguel17]

Not to be hyperbolic, but socialism, at it's heart, seems to be a inherent mistrust of free people and their actions.

No wonder it's an abandoned relic of the early 20th century. Socialism, in it's modern form, is a reaction against the supposed failures of industrial capitalism.

The 19th Century notwithstanding, I would go so far as to argue that we might be witnessing the failures of industrial capitalism, at least in its current form, over the course of the past five years.

 

[Miguel17]

Tactics are sometimes necessary to make a point that otherwise may have been ignored. Dont confuse what I am about to say with back tracking or excuses, I assure you that I had a rational reason for the appearance of my behavior.

You are not the first intelligent Socialist to come on the internet and start talking down to non-Socialists. In fact the conversation that you have raised is an old topic that's been done to death. Which means no matter what twist that you throw in there will be a natural progression in this tired conversation. The first stage of delight of the Socialist Monologuer is the school session phase. Most Socialist enjoy this part since they can point out that the Soviets etc were not real Socialists. Then comes the slam against the Christian right for being hypocrites. And a further slam on the entire Right for shunning a perceived Socialist society. Which leads into the assertions that Capitalism is wrong. At this point there are variations depending on the monologuers actual ideology. Which can range from Democratic Socialism all the way past Stalinism and beyond to Anarchism. If they are Anarchist they will then define Anarchism or it may be Leftist libertarianism. Either course will lead to the assertion that Capitalism is bad. And they really mean that its so bad in their opinion that it warrants drastic measures to stop Capitalism. Oh and some where in there they will attack All Americans for the Red Scare and try to use its existence as more proof in how bad Capitalism is. Perhaps a few other pet issues will come into play at this time. Then comes the perceived knock out punch equating America with Capitalism gone bad. Or they may even make it sound good and claim that there can be good Capitalism but only if its married to some form of Socialism. But the end result is that Americas Government is bad has always been bad and should be replaced with some sort of Socialist version, depending on the ideology of the monologuer it may be an entire reboot or Socialistic progressive replacement.

Now why did I call you an asshole so openly despite board rules? I cut to the chase to show you what your tactics will achieve with the average American non-Socialist. No matter what method Socialists chose to use, in the end it will only cause conflict with Americans. Karl Marx noted that America would take much longer to convert maybe even never. This is because even as lame as he was a sociologist even he realized that Americans have a culture that is deep enough to not be fooled by his poor ass attempts of revenge. It is pertinent for me to point out that Marx never even suggested that society return to the ancient times that modern Socialists use as bait.

Anyway the only place that your school session will end is in conflict with the people that you were trying to school on Socialism and the reason is that Socialism is nothing more than Anti-Capitalism. The reason that the Red Scare was such a huge failure as a tactic to curb Socialist mutiny is that it was a campaign of hate and people do not normally want to hate other people based on discrimination alone. Sure perhaps for a short period it may work but given time it will fail as history has shown. A good example is the Christians Right hate of Atheism, despite all of their hate Atheism is on the rise today. People are no longer believing that Atheists are evil immoral animals. Well except the die hards.

I would suggest searching the forum to read the conversations that I am talking about. And I would also suggest googling for other forums with the same topic as what you have started here. And you should be able to comprehend that I know what I am speaking of. I would also suggest that if you want to teach people about Socialism as something non vile that you should do more homework in the sociological fields. Learn what other Socialists are talking about avoid the mistakes that they are making and by all means do not tell Americans that all that we have ever known and believed in as citizens of this fine nation is wrong. We all know by all I mean every voting American that things are not the way that they should be. But that perversion of our country will never be an excuse to introduce Socialism in a large majorities view. Again Socialism is a system designed to be anti-Capitalism which to most Americans equals anti-Constitutional. You may not understand that rational but none the less that rational exist in droves of Americans. See we already have a system of Government in this country and Socialism is a system that is designed to replace Governments. From the start Socialism means war. And Americans will never go willingly into Socialism or at least enough Americans that are willing to fight say no way to Socialism. And no matter if you feel that these people are wrong or misinformed you will not be able to make these people go away. Socialism is entirely a Leftist proposition always has been always will be. The Right wont just sit idly in the corners that you thought you could send them too.


"People who do not take part in a libertarian society should be left to their own devices. They should be left alone. If they want to come back, they can. If they don't, that's their freedom." What you said there was that the only acceptable ideology is a Libertarian society. You are pimping your ideology as the only solution. Which if your become successful then you have become exactly what earlier you were telling us was bad. The magnitude of the punishment is of no value since you are still promoting the same intolerance's.

AT this point you may continue the typical down slide progression that this subject will take or you could end it now or perhaps you could take a new direction rather than the tired path of conflict that this conversation will lead us to. The choice is yours.

I don't think America's system has always been bad. I consider the type of capitalism that was practiced from our country's inception to the late-19th Century Industrial Revolution to have been a much better system than what we have now. You're right to an extent--I think think the failure of capitalism in 1929 was only remedied by a move towards socialism in the FDR administration. You can see the point I'm trying to make--capitalism was saved by socialism, albeit of the diluted Keynesian variety.

I'm not a sociologist, but I like to think that I've done my homework in the most relevant field of all-history. People who oppose socialism like to throw out their pet theories on history, but they are usually amateurs. That's why their historical arguments about the failure of socialism and the permanent validity of capitalism don't carry much weight; they usually don't know what they're talking about.

I have to disagree with your assertion that socialism is anti-constitutional. There is nothing in our constitution that prohibits the collectivization of capital. Capital is not mentioned in the document. Now, you may argue (as many have to me) that the Founding Fathers would have disagreed with socialism--this is as true as it is irrelevant. The Founding Fathers would also have disagreed with female suffrage, black suffrage, black equal rights, and so on....but that would not make any of it unconstitutional.

You are right that average voting Americans would disapprove of socialism--but you can no doubt tell, by the state of the Democratic and Republican Parties today, that the average voting American may not be the best informed of most intelligent. That's a problem we should all want to solve, regardless of political affiliations. I disagree with you on many subjects, but I'm sure both you and I are unhappy with the inequities of our current political and economic system. And the fact is that most people are so informed that they oppose "socialism" in the theoretical sense, but wholeheartedly supports its fruits--public education, a progressive income tax, social security, welfare, medicare, the social safety net, and so on. I assert, as I have many times before in this thread, that the opposition to socialism on the part of so many Americans is due mostly to their ignorance of what socialism is. That's the whole reason I started this thread in the first place--to demonstrate and hope to correct the ignorance of so many about what socialism is.

 

[Miguel17]

I have no doubt that socialism can work on a small enough scale but the issue I have is the voluntary part of it. For this to be truely voluntary, you would need to move your group of people to an uninhabited land. You couldn't bring any individual which couldn't consent to the rules of your society such as the mentally handicapped and young children. The issue of children is especially problematic to a "voluntary" society.

Now back to the Spanish revolution. From what I'm reading, it isn't the greatest example of socialism working to put it lightly. Just from a quick wikipedia search:

Criticism of the Spanish Revolution has primarily centered around allegations of coercion by anarchist participants (primarily in the rural collectives of Aragon), which critics charge run contrary to libertarian organizational principles. Bolloten claims that CNT-FAI reports overplayed the voluntary nature of collectivization, and ignored the more widespread realities of coercion of outright force as the primary characteristic of anarchist organization
Michael Seidman has revealed other contradictions with workers' self-management during the Spanish Revolution. He points out that the CNT decided both that workers could be sacked for 'laziness or immorality' and also that all workers should 'have a file where the details of their professional and social personalities will be registered.



1. I wouldn't call that society equitable. I would argue that socialism isn't fair because it either uses unjustified force at some point and suffers from lack of compensation compard to a capitalist society. I ask that you be more specific when you say a worker will have more control over the product he/she makes. That itself is to vague for me to argue against.
2. market-induced standards are not artificial nor arbitrary. Companies must research how much compensation to provide an employee in X field of work or else their competitors will gain that employee.



By what standard are you saying that it worked?


This is more an issue of government than of money. Governments have a long history of mandating one single currency to use. If that currency goes bottom-up, everyone loses. This is why we need multiple, competing currencies. Why do you think money arbitrarily fluctuates in value, meaning without reason?


Do you think people are entitled to food, clothing, etc ?
I agree that wealth can't be concentrated at the top for a healthy economy. When I said that as societies become richer the middle class grow and the poor shrink, I was using a generalization. There are plenty more factors to consider which I omitted for simplicity. I merely meant that statement as a general trend.



Good. You understand why money became invented and how useful it is and how ineffective bartering can be. Knowing what money really is, I don't understand why you hate it? If you get rid of money you go back to some form of barter system which has already proven itself to be useless.

I don't think the entire eastern half of Spain could be called a small scale. In terms of your question regarding the voluntary aspect--the land and capital obtained by the Spanish libertarian socialists was more or less legally confiscated--that is, confiscated from landlords and businessmen who had come out in support of General Franco, a treasonous stance against the legal government of Spain. In some cases the Spanish republicans backtracked on these confiscations after the fact, but the fact remains that the survival of republican control in Catalonia and the rest of eastern Spain was due to the lib-soc workers themselves, rather than government forces. Obviously, the specific circumstances of this collectivization (during a rebellion/civil war in the midst of total governmental breakdown) are not typical in world history, but you have to keep them in mind when gauging the voluntary aspect of the collectivization.

I argue that the society created was equitable because the people gave what they could and took what they needed. That's the most basic (perhaps even primitive) form of an equitable society that I know of. It's much more equitable that our society, in my opinion-- a society where every system of compensation is based upon market values that I consider to be incontrovertibly arbitrary.

It worked in the sense that it functioned--people gave what they could and had what they needed. It worked without fiscal crises or collapses so characteristic of state capitalism or socialism. It worked by providing people what they needed with no regard for artificially created "needs." It worked by increasing productivity throughout all sectors whilst reducing waste and theft, compared to your typical capitalist or state socialist economies.

I do believe that people who work and contribute to society are entitled to basic necessities like food, clothing, and shelter. This belief is not so incompatible with our own country's beliefs--that's why we have social security, retirement, social welfare, unemployment insurance, and the like. These types of social programs have arisen because of our society's understanding that capitalism cannot provide for the most basic needs of many Americans.

I don't think libertarian socialism entails a barter system like you describe. Most Catalan lib-socs ascribed to the type of voucher-time worked system described in Proudhon and enacted in the Paris Commune and utop-soc systems since then. A voucher system which entitles the purchase of goods based upon time worked has more in common with a monetary system than with a barter system, I think.

 

[cmakaioz]

Not to be hyperbolic, but socialism, at it's heart, seems to be a inherent mistrust of free people and their actions.

That's not hyperbolic...it's intellectually dishonest.

Hyperbolic would be taking the essence of something and pushing it -- in rhetorical or hypothetical form -- to some absurd extreme.

The basis of socialism is: any of a range of politicoeconomic systems in which production is carried out on a cooperative basis primarily for the sake of use. This neither presumes nor requires ANY specific position of trust or mistrust. It only recognizes the empirical observation that -- holding resources and energy constant -- cooperation produces vastly superior results to competition.

 

[cmakaioz]

I know that socialists like to pretend that Nazis and commies arent socialists, but they are.

Wrong. People who have the slightest shred of concern for intellectual honesty and basic accuracy observe the fact that simply naming something a certain way, or having public figures use the RHETORIC of appealing to a certain ideal, doesn't make them (or the policies they advocate) match such a declaration.

Basically, anyone who acknowledges that someone saying "I am the Emperor of the Universe" doesn't actually MAKE that person the Emperor of the Universe...is already worlds ahead of anyone and everyone who either falls for (or worse yet, actively promotes) this tired Red Scare bull****.

 

[Darrell]

I know that socialists like to pretend that Nazis and commies arent socialists, but they are. Fascists are on the right of the socialist spectrum and communists on the left. The differences between the two are superficial really and the fundamental principles behind each are identical--the power of the state or the collective superceeds that of the individual. That one allows nominal ownership of property and the other does not is not and overly important distinction in my view. You can go through life believing that socialists are the good guys if you like, but they arent now nor ever have been. Socialism is tyranny.

Do you know what communism, fascism, or even socialism is? Based on your.......work I will have to say, "No." Fascist or "Nazis" hate Communist. Do you know why? Am I surprised you don't? No, they hate communist, because they have opposing ideology. I can go on, but I am trying to keep it simple for you. Fascism equals extreme right, while communism equals extreme left. So, yeah. Since you are basically comparing democrats to communism, then I can compare republicans to lets say, the taliban. As I recall, the Taliban and the Nazis Fascist regime, was like a tyranny wouldn't you say.

 

[HK.227]

What are your thoughts?

My thought is: Any given phenomena is defined by it's behaviour. That is the basis of all scientific thought, ideologies included.
"A car in every garage" is a catchy phrase, but it can hardly be considered an accurate definition of nazism.
"The workers owning the means of production" is a catchy line too, but there has never been a socialist state where this was the case, so it is not a valid definition, merely a statement of intent.

I would place socialism and (classical) liberalism at opposite ends of a scale.
Under absolute socialism the government owns and controls everything, while under absolute liberalism, the government owns and controls nothing. Everything else falls in between.
I don't really find classes all that interesting, as they are merely manifestations of the governmental system. Someone will always wield governmentally sanctioned power. What is interesting is how much power they hold compared to the rest of society.

 

[RGacky3]

economic democracy ... plain and simple.