ITT we talk about socialism

[Lies]

So I've kinda always had a general idea of what socialism is, but I really don't *get* it as well as I think I should.

Moreoever, I'm aware of the supposed pro's of socialism, but what are the con's?
Anyone who can give me an enlightened view of it would be much appreciated.

Also if anyone can explain the difference (if there is one) between it and communism.

[Requia ☣]

The way I understand it, socialism is where everybody is guaranteed access to the basics (food, shelter, healthcare) regardless of what job they have or if they have one at all.  Beyond that basic survival layer regular capitalism (or corporatism, whichever) takes over.

[Don Coyote]

My understanding of socialism is that the workers own the company they work for and share equally in the profits and goods manufactured.

[Dysnomia]

I'm curious about it too, since I think I get it but not sure.

also:


Socialism?



HURDER

[Requia ☣]

My understanding of socialism is that the workers own the company they work for and share equally in the profits and goods manufactured.

How is that different from communism then?

And are you sure you aren't stuck on the 19th century meaning?  My understanding was that socialism meant that over a century ago.  Words do change.

[Don Coyote]

My understanding of socialism is that the workers own the company they work for and share equally in the profits and goods manufactured.

How is that different from communism then?

And are you sure you aren't stuck on the 19th century meaning?  My understanding was that socialism meant that over a century ago.  Words do change.

1. fuck if I know. I never bothered to puzzle out the differences betwixt the two. I always figure they were the same thing or same class of thing.

and
2. That is very likely, although wikipedia -snicker- does agree with me to an extent.

All I have ever gathered from my readings on socialism is that it's about the people owning the places they work for, which gets broadened out to the People, as in the nation or state, owning the Stuff and everyone gets a piece.

[Requia ☣]

I guess it comes out to be different from communism in that the individuals fortune is still tied to the company and not the state, which means it easier to jump a sinking ship, but still has the same 'people are not ants' issues overall.

But if wikipedia is right then what the hell does universal health care have to do with socialism?

[Don Coyote]

I guess it comes out to be different from communism in that the individuals fortune is still tied to the company and not the state, which means it easier to jump a sinking ship, but still has the same 'people are not ants' issues overall.

But if wikipedia is right then what the hell does universal health care have to do with socialism?

two things come to mind.

wikipedia is not fully right or nothing.

There is a lot more stuff on the wikipedia entry on Socialism than just the basic "workers own their company" The word itself seems to be a very fluid word, sometimes it just means what I stated, sometimes it means "stuff for the people," sometimes it's "communism lite," and other times it's "another communist plot."

[BabylonHoruv]

The way I understand it, socialism is where everybody is guaranteed access to the basics (food, shelter, healthcare) regardless of what job they have or if they have one at all.  Beyond that basic survival layer regular capitalism (or corporatism, whichever) takes over.

That's not socialism, that's a welfare state.

[BabylonHoruv]

According to Marx Socialism (worker ownership of the means of production, like Aedh said) is the stepping stone to communism.  Communism is a classless society without rulers.  Worker ownership of production is not classless because some people still make more than others.  Even within one company some people are going to do more valuable work.

[Phox]

Speaking as a former Poli Sci major, socialism, in its original context at least was supposed to serve as a transitional phase between the current state of affairs and true communist utopia. It was the stage at which the "state" owned all the businesses, goods, etc. and distributed them equally (or at least fairly) among the populace. True communism was a place in which there was no "state", because it was no longer necessary, because the people had come to a point at which they could freely share the goods and the labor, and all was well.

Of course, this is a rather simplified version, and again, what was originally meant by the term, when Marx was still alive and able to spell out what he meant. In a modern context, socialism generally refers to basically any government that ensures all or at least a goodly number of its citizens have access to basic needs like food, shelter, healthcare, etc. Whether that is a correct definition or not, it is an all too common one.

People tend to overlook the fact that communism is an economic theory and a political theory, that leads to dissolution of the government once the economic principles are adequately in place. The USSR was not truly communist, and it could fairly easily be argued it wasn't all that socialist either, but thanks to its very existence, the definitions have changed. Nowadays, just about everybody defines it in their own personal way.

On a somewhat unrelated note, I remember seeing a political cartoon many years ago that featured a "Russia: Then and Now" motif. In the "Then" section, which was indicating before the collapse of the USSR, it featured a food vendor's stand with a single sausage, advertised at one rubble, with a long line of people waiting to buy it. "Now" had the same vendor's stand, with a significant supply of sausages, advertised at millions of rubbles (can't recall how many, exactly), with only a single person in line. I believe it was a "1989/1999" comparison, but I can't recall, and I may be exaggerating at the price of the "now", but needless to say, it was a completely unfair price. The message was that Russia wasn't much better off under capitalism, though, that was fairly obvious I'm sure. That particular cartoon always amused me, and made me consider the dangers of extreme capitalism for the first time. that's basically the time I started advocating for a state of permanent and benevolent socialism, so I guess it's relevant.

[BabylonHoruv]

Speaking as a former Poli Sci major, socialism, in its original context at least was supposed to serve as a transitional phase between the current state of affairs and true communist utopia. It was the stage at which the "state" owned all the businesses, goods, etc. and distributed them equally (or at least fairly) among the populace. True communism was a place in which there was no "state", because it was no longer necessary, because the people had come to a point at which they could freely share the goods and the labor, and all was well.

Of course, this is a rather simplified version, and again, what was originally meant by the term, when Marx was still alive and able to spell out what he meant. In a modern context, socialism generally refers to basically any government that ensures all or at least a goodly number of its citizens have access to basic needs like food, shelter, healthcare, etc. Whether that is a correct definition or not, it is an all too common one.

People tend to overlook the fact that communism is an economic theory and a political theory, that leads to dissolution of the government once the economic principles are adequately in place. The USSR was not truly communist, and it could fairly easily be argued it wasn't all that socialist either, but thanks to its very existence, the definitions have changed. Nowadays, just about everybody defines it in their own personal way.

On a somewhat unrelated note, I remember seeing a political cartoon many years ago that featured a "Russia: Then and Now" motif. In the "Then" section, which was indicating before the collapse of the USSR, it featured a food vendor's stand with a single sausage, advertised at one rubble, with a long line of people waiting to buy it. "Now" had the same vendor's stand, with a significant supply of sausages, advertised at millions of rubbles (can't recall how many, exactly), with only a single person in line. I believe it was a "1989/1999" comparison, but I can't recall, and I may be exaggerating at the price of the "now", but needless to say, it was a completely unfair price. The message was that Russia wasn't much better off under capitalism, though, that was fairly obvious I'm sure. That particular cartoon always amused me, and made me consider the dangers of extreme capitalism for the first time. that's basically the time I started advocating for a state of permanent and benevolent socialism, so I guess it's relevant.

According to every socialist I have talked to, including some Stalinists, Russia was State Capitalist.  The Stalinists claimed this was a necessary step toward true socialism.

[Phox]

Speaking as a former Poli Sci major, socialism, in its original context at least was supposed to serve as a transitional phase between the current state of affairs and true communist utopia. It was the stage at which the "state" owned all the businesses, goods, etc. and distributed them equally (or at least fairly) among the populace. True communism was a place in which there was no "state", because it was no longer necessary, because the people had come to a point at which they could freely share the goods and the labor, and all was well.

Of course, this is a rather simplified version, and again, what was originally meant by the term, when Marx was still alive and able to spell out what he meant. In a modern context, socialism generally refers to basically any government that ensures all or at least a goodly number of its citizens have access to basic needs like food, shelter, healthcare, etc. Whether that is a correct definition or not, it is an all too common one.

People tend to overlook the fact that communism is an economic theory and a political theory, that leads to dissolution of the government once the economic principles are adequately in place. The USSR was not truly communist, and it could fairly easily be argued it wasn't all that socialist either, but thanks to its very existence, the definitions have changed. Nowadays, just about everybody defines it in their own personal way.

On a somewhat unrelated note, I remember seeing a political cartoon many years ago that featured a "Russia: Then and Now" motif. In the "Then" section, which was indicating before the collapse of the USSR, it featured a food vendor's stand with a single sausage, advertised at one rubble, with a long line of people waiting to buy it. "Now" had the same vendor's stand, with a significant supply of sausages, advertised at millions of rubbles (can't recall how many, exactly), with only a single person in line. I believe it was a "1989/1999" comparison, but I can't recall, and I may be exaggerating at the price of the "now", but needless to say, it was a completely unfair price. The message was that Russia wasn't much better off under capitalism, though, that was fairly obvious I'm sure. That particular cartoon always amused me, and made me consider the dangers of extreme capitalism for the first time. that's basically the time I started advocating for a state of permanent and benevolent socialism, so I guess it's relevant.

According to every socialist I have talked to, including some Stalinists, Russia was State Capitalist.  The Stalinists claimed this was a necessary step toward true socialism.

I would agree with that assessment, disagree with Stalinists, and say that it really makes no difference, since the average American still refers to "communist" when referring to the USSR, Soviet satellite republics, and Maoist China. Which is certainly a misnomer, but the vernacular makes the definition, from a linguistic point of view.

[Lies]

Speaking as a former Poli Sci major, socialism, in its original context at least was supposed to serve as a transitional phase between the current state of affairs and true communist utopia. It was the stage at which the "state" owned all the businesses, goods, etc. and distributed them equally (or at least fairly) among the populace. True communism was a place in which there was no "state", because it was no longer necessary, because the people had come to a point at which they could freely share the goods and the labor, and all was well.

Of course, this is a rather simplified version, and again, what was originally meant by the term, when Marx was still alive and able to spell out what he meant. In a modern context, socialism generally refers to basically any government that ensures all or at least a goodly number of its citizens have access to basic needs like food, shelter, healthcare, etc. Whether that is a correct definition or not, it is an all too common one.

People tend to overlook the fact that communism is an economic theory and a political theory, that leads to dissolution of the government once the economic principles are adequately in place. The USSR was not truly communist, and it could fairly easily be argued it wasn't all that socialist either, but thanks to its very existence, the definitions have changed. Nowadays, just about everybody defines it in their own personal way.

On a somewhat unrelated note, I remember seeing a political cartoon many years ago that featured a "Russia: Then and Now" motif. In the "Then" section, which was indicating before the collapse of the USSR, it featured a food vendor's stand with a single sausage, advertised at one rubble, with a long line of people waiting to buy it. "Now" had the same vendor's stand, with a significant supply of sausages, advertised at millions of rubbles (can't recall how many, exactly), with only a single person in line. I believe it was a "1989/1999" comparison, but I can't recall, and I may be exaggerating at the price of the "now", but needless to say, it was a completely unfair price. The message was that Russia wasn't much better off under capitalism, though, that was fairly obvious I'm sure. That particular cartoon always amused me, and made me consider the dangers of extreme capitalism for the first time. that's basically the time I started advocating for a state of permanent and benevolent socialism, so I guess it's relevant.

So what prevents socialism/communism from working the way it's supposed to?
Every example of socialist/communist states I've don't ever seem to work out to the ideal it holds itself to...

[Don Coyote]

So what prevents socialism/communism from working the way it's supposed to?

People