ITT we talk about socialism

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think that most of the pro-capitalist Americans don't realize that its based on feudalism.

America: millions of serfs thinking that someday they'll be manor lords because of OMGZCAPITALISM.

DING DING DING

Feudal serfs couldn't purchase property from the Land Lords.

Once you purchase land and put a house on it, aren't you, by definition, becoming a Lord of your Manor?

There were plenty of smallholders in feudal times. They weren't lords of the manor, but they did own their own homes.  The amount of Americans who are smallholders as opposed to serfs is less than most people think though.  If you "own" a home but have a mortgage you don't own it, the banks do.  We do, at least, have the freedom to leave, which serfs traditionally did not.

Depends on the time period and the country, in some areas serfs were relatively free and that included the right to move to a different Lord's estate (this toward the end of the feudal era). Serfs in some countries could earn additional income, as long as they paid for the land they farmed and the house they lived in. They could pass down inheritance, they could gain wealth...

Sure we get to vote for the people in charge of the government, but that doesn't really change day-today life.

[Disco Pickle]

Sure we get to vote for the people in charge of the government, but that doesn't really change day-today life.

If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.

can't recall where I first heard that.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Sure we get to vote for the people in charge of the government, but that doesn't really change day-today life.

If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.

can't recall where I first heard that.

Emma Goldman said it.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Sure we get to vote for the people in charge of the government, but that doesn't really change day-today life.

If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.

can't recall where I first heard that.

Emma Goldman said it.

ANARCHISTS!!!

[Faust]

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.

Incorrect, a socialist state is one that encourages people to provide those for themselves but also provides a safety net.
I don't think there are any fully socialist countries.
Greece adapted some tenants when they were socialist (and it did the country marvels, but that came to an end when the socialist party got booted out).
What they had was
1) free education right up to doctorate level for all people with a caveat, you have to do well, if you fail a year you would have to repeat on full fees.
2) Free Basic medical care (all emergency services and any necessary prescriptions but nothing deemed superfluous)
3) Water was provided for free for everyone as long as they never went over a certain limit and they were going to do the same with the electricity but they got booted out.
Housing and food was provided to anyone who couldn't manage, But and this is my favourite thing about that government:

There was no such thing as a welfare cheque or housing or food stamps, a person MUST be in employment to get the special 'Minimum living allowance' which consisted of a flat, food and a small amount of pay.
However the twist on this was that all you needed to qualify as self employed was assessed on a criteria of 'contributing to the society overall'
The main people this attracted were artists, dancers, singers, and a great many people who made every town more vibrant, there was very little litter or graffiti as some on welfare chose to be litter pickers or people who cleaned the odd wall, railings, benches.
The criteria was even kind towards older and more frail people, they were allowed do simple things like sell lolipops or newspapers for a couple of hours a day.

I don't think it would have worked everywhere else because this idea actually helped strengthen Greeces tourist trade, which was its main source of income.

[Faust]

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

People

Wrong, I think socialism works just fine in countries geared mainly around the service sector (education, tourism and that kind of thing).
It falls apart when you try to involve large manufacturing companies contribution to a country.They are constantly trying to downsize their workforce, automate and lower costs. Socialism needs a large turnover in money on the low levels.

[LMNO]

There was no such thing as a welfare cheque or housing or food stamps, a person MUST be in employment to get the special 'Minimum living allowance' which consisted of a flat, food and a small amount of pay.
However the twist on this was that all you needed to qualify as self employed was assessed on a criteria of 'contributing to the society overall'
The main people this attracted were artists, dancers, singers, and a great many people who made every town more vibrant, there was very little litter or graffiti as some on welfare chose to be litter pickers or people who cleaned the odd wall, railings, benches.
The criteria was even kind towards older and more frail people, they were allowed do simple things like sell lolipops or newspapers for a couple of hours a day.

I don't think it would have worked everywhere else because this idea actually helped strengthen Greeces tourist trade, which was its main source of income.

Whoa.  My idealism just got a pick-me-up.  That sounds like a great idea.

[Triple Zero]

bump cause I have a question, spurred by Cain's thread on social security.

What exactly (or sort of) is the relation between socialism and social security?

[Cain]

bump cause I have a question, spurred by Cain's thread on social security.

What exactly (or sort of) is the relation between socialism and social security?

Depends on the kind of socialist.

Those whose politics are generally conventional and tend towards the social democracy end of the spectrum favour the welfare state as protecting citizens against chance errors and the wildly disparate effects of market capitalism.  Unions also generally fall under this description.

Democratic socialists, libertarian socialists and Marxists however generally see the welfare state as a concession by capitalists to appease the proletariat and make them less likely to try and create what they consider a truly socialist society.  They believe that with cooperative, public ownership of the means of production, there will be no need for a welfare state at all.

[Faust]

So the latter would be the idealistic as opposed to realistic?

[Cain]

Well as far as I can see, the latter has never been tried large scale, so it's highly speculative at the very least.