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.
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.
My understanding of socialism is that the workers own the company they work for and share equally in the profits and goods manufactured.
I'm curious about it too, since I think I get it but not sure.
also:
Socialism?
:mullet: :mullet: :mullet:
HURDER
Quote from: Lunar Wolf of the Cow Moon 13 on August 23, 2010, 05:10:07 AM
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.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 23, 2010, 05:13:24 AM
Quote from: Lunar Wolf of the Cow Moon 13 on August 23, 2010, 05:10:07 AM
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.
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?
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 23, 2010, 05:39:21 AM
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."
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 23, 2010, 05:07:20 AM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on August 23, 2010, 06:02:16 AM
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.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on August 23, 2010, 06:05:32 AM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on August 23, 2010, 06:02:16 AM
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.
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on August 23, 2010, 06:02:16 AM
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...
Quote from: Lysergic on August 23, 2010, 06:36:00 AM
So what prevents socialism/communism from working the way it's supposed to?
People
Quote from: Lunar Wolf of the Cow Moon 13 on August 23, 2010, 06:40:46 AM
Quote from: Lysergic on August 23, 2010, 06:36:00 AM
So what prevents socialism/communism from working the way it's supposed to?
People
Essentially, yes. The problem generally arises with the fact that there can't be a dissolution of the "ruling" class until the proletariat is willing to equally divide both goods and labor. Compound this with the fact that the people in power won't want to give up their power, even if the "people" are ready, and we end up mucking around in failed social experiment territory. But, then again, maybe I'm too cynical. I am a Hobbesian, after all.
So what's being Hobbesian involve?
Something about a giant whale. :lulz:
Or more seriously, my understanding is, there has to be someone in authority over a state.
Quote from: Lysergic on August 23, 2010, 06:57:46 AM
So what's being Hobbesian involve?
It means I tend to think of human nature and human life as being "nasty, brutish, and short". I agree with Thomas Hobbes' theories, as laid out in "The Leviathan".
Quote from: Lunar Wolf of the Cow Moon 13 on August 23, 2010, 07:04:23 AM
Something about a giant whale. :lulz:
Or more seriously, my understanding is, there has to be someone in authority over a state.
Yes, but not just any authority. The idea is that people, without an iron-fisted tyrant, or some equally authoritarian ruler, are little more than an unruly mob that will gladly kill anyone who oppose them. Living in the times we do, it is rather easy to think of this as being the case. You are better off being crushed under the heel of a dictator than facing the far worse prospect of being faced with the tyranny of the majority. The dictator, if you mind your own business and do what he says, probably won't kill you. On the other hand, if you are more well off than your neighbor, he will probably try to kill you and take your stuff, if there is no fear that he will be punished. The dictator will need you for labor, or military service, or what have you. The neighbor just needs your stuff.
That's very interesting, I kinda like it....
Ironically, this doesn't stop me from being an idealist. I would love for an enlightened socialist oligarchy to take over the world, but after maybe one or two generations it would all fall down from corruption, revolt, etc., etc.
Hey, we can always dream right?
I mean, the socialists do...
True, I guess.
Quote from: Lysergic on August 23, 2010, 05:01:16 AM
Also if anyone can explain the difference (if there is one) between it and communism.
Socialism is a trip to Canada.
Communism is going to the department of motor vehicles for the rest of your life.
Quote from: Lysergic on August 23, 2010, 08:17:24 AM
Hey, we can always dream right?
I mean, the socialists do...
As do the free market retards. Difference is, socialism kinda works, and minarchism doesn't work at all.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 23, 2010, 03:20:26 PM
Quote from: Lysergic on August 23, 2010, 08:17:24 AM
Hey, we can always dream right?
I mean, the socialists do...
As do the free market retards. Difference is, socialism kinda works, and minarchism doesn't work at all.
Can you give examples as to where socialism has kinda worked?
Quote from: Lysergic on August 23, 2010, 03:30:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 23, 2010, 03:20:26 PM
Quote from: Lysergic on August 23, 2010, 08:17:24 AM
Hey, we can always dream right?
I mean, the socialists do...
As do the free market retards. Difference is, socialism kinda works, and minarchism doesn't work at all.
Can you give examples as to where socialism has kinda worked?
Canada, and damn near all of Western Europe.
Didn't realise they were socialists there... Interesting.
Socialized medicine comes to mind.
Quote from: Lysergic on August 23, 2010, 05:08:18 PM
Didn't realise they were socialists there... Interesting.
Well, I'm distinguishing between communism and socialism. Not many people do that, apparently.
Quote from: Lysergic on August 23, 2010, 06:36:00 AM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on August 23, 2010, 06:02:16 AM
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...
I'd say Scandinavian Socialism, while far from perfect, has been working pretty well.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on August 23, 2010, 07:32:38 PM
Quote from: Lysergic on August 23, 2010, 06:36:00 AM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on August 23, 2010, 06:02:16 AM
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...
I'd say Scandinavian Socialism, while far from perfect, has been working pretty well.
If someone wants perfection, they're going to spend their entire lives being disappointed. The purpose of civilization isn't the bottom line or a high GDP...Those are a means, not an end.
If someone wants efficient government, they need look no further than Nazi Germany.
PROTIP: An efficient government is a tyranny. Bureaucratic fuckups are your last line of defense.
Discussing socialism just encourages Glenn Beck, and smug takedowns of the former by the Fabians. And no-one wants that.
my understanding was always that Socialism is the economic aspect of Maxism (i.e. the Distribution of goods and services, orchestrated by Gov't), whereas Communism was the proprietary aspect of Marxism (the land, means of production, the other buzzwords...)
Of course, Karl Marx is dead, so whatever he said is just as subject to being mangled as Jesus' words, right?
I would say that Socialism/Communism haven't worked for a list a reasons. The biggest being that the more well known communist states weren't. Show me a communist state, and I will Wikishow you why they are Fascist, Or Capitalist, or at the least, Not Communist.
I think communism could work, actually, if people were bred into it over the course of several generations. Not that anyone would want that, of course, but it DOES gives credence to the notion of a conspiracy...
Quote from: Iron Sulfide on August 23, 2010, 08:36:30 PM
my understanding was always that Socialism is the economic aspect of Maxism (i.e. the Distribution of goods and services, orchestrated by Gov't), whereas Communism was the proprietary aspect of Marxism (the land, means of production, the other buzzwords...)
Of course, Karl Marx is dead, so whatever he said is just as subject to being mangled as Jesus' words, right?
I would say that Socialism/Communism haven't worked for a list a reasons. The biggest being that the more well known communist states weren't. Show me a communist state, and I will Wikishow you why they are Fascist, Or Capitalist, or at the least, Not Communist.
I think communism could work, actually, if people were bred into it over the course of several generations. Not that anyone would want that, of course, but it DOES gives credence to the notion of a conspiracy...
Okay.
Canada is now a Marxist nation.
Communism could work with 150 people or under (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number).
Quote from: Cuddlefish on August 23, 2010, 05:33:53 PM
Quote from: Lunar Wolf of the Cow Moon 13 on August 23, 2010, 06:40:46 AM
Quote from: Lysergic on August 23, 2010, 06:36:00 AM
So what prevents socialism/communism from working the way it's supposed to?
People
:lulz: S'funny cuz it's true.
Yes, but that holds for most -isms.
Except Discordianism, that works the way it does
because of People.
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 24, 2010, 08:22:53 AM
Quote from: Cuddlefish on August 23, 2010, 05:33:53 PM
Quote from: Lunar Wolf of the Cow Moon 13 on August 23, 2010, 06:40:46 AM
Quote from: Lysergic on August 23, 2010, 06:36:00 AM
So what prevents socialism/communism from working the way it's supposed to?
People
:lulz: S'funny cuz it's true.
Yes, but that holds for most -isms.
Except Discordianism, that works the way it does because of People.
Tribal monkeys are tribal and monkeys.
Here is a real world example of most -ism's
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJUn4gwevLg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJUn4gwevLg)
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 23, 2010, 07:42:06 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on August 23, 2010, 07:32:38 PM
Quote from: Lysergic on August 23, 2010, 06:36:00 AM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on August 23, 2010, 06:02:16 AM
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...
I'd say Scandinavian Socialism, while far from perfect, has been working pretty well.
If someone wants perfection, they're going to spend their entire lives being disappointed. The purpose of civilization isn't the bottom line or a high GDP...Those are a means, not an end.
If someone wants efficient government, they need look no further than Nazi Germany.
PROTIP: An efficient government is a tyranny. Bureaucratic fuckups are your last line of defense.
Nazi Germany was actually horribly inefficient. Their military was a well oiled machine but the government was a mess. Hitler had set up a system where the power of government officials was poorly defined and as a result ended up overlapping, this lead to infighting and general confusion.
Quote from: Lord Carlos Esquire on August 24, 2010, 08:47:06 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 23, 2010, 07:42:06 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on August 23, 2010, 07:32:38 PM
Quote from: Lysergic on August 23, 2010, 06:36:00 AM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on August 23, 2010, 06:02:16 AM
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...
I'd say Scandinavian Socialism, while far from perfect, has been working pretty well.
If someone wants perfection, they're going to spend their entire lives being disappointed. The purpose of civilization isn't the bottom line or a high GDP...Those are a means, not an end.
If someone wants efficient government, they need look no further than Nazi Germany.
PROTIP: An efficient government is a tyranny. Bureaucratic fuckups are your last line of defense.
Nazi Germany was actually horribly inefficient. Their military was a well oiled machine but the government was a mess. Hitler had set up a system where the power of government officials was poorly defined and as a result ended up overlapping, this lead to infighting and general confusion.
Makes sense. Guaranteed that he still called all the shots.
He kind of set the guidelines - sort of. It was up to his ministers (sometimes he would appoint several on the same task) to make what ever nonsense he spouted to a reality. That's why it was so poorly defined and there was so much infighting.
I remember reading (though I don't claim to be an expert on this, or even have a defined opinion on this) that without the war and the exploitation of the new territories the government and economy probably would have collapsed.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 24, 2010, 09:01:17 PM
He kind of set the guidelines - sort of. It was up to his ministers (sometimes he would appoint several on the same task) to make what ever nonsense he spouted to a reality. That's why it was so poorly defined and there was so much infighting.
I remember reading (though I don't claim to be an expert on this, or even have a defined opinion on this) that without the war and the exploitation of the new territories the government and economy probably would have collapsed.
I heard the same thing from one of my friends who is a fan of alternate history novels.
Hitler purposefully infused Nazi Germany with that kind of inefficiency, however. He did it partly out of ideological reasons, and partly out of sensible, dictatorial ones. By making sure everyone had at least one other person with a similar portfolio or responsibilities, they'd have to fight each other to prove themselves to Hitler, and thus they were all too busy scheming against each other instead of against the Fuhrer. It fitted well with his Social Darwinist worldview, of the weak being weeded out by the strong as well.
Back to Socialism, have we established yet that it is more than Soviet Russia and "Communist" China? It's also Scandinavia, Canada, and quite a few European countries. So "Socialism doesn't work" is no more accurate than "Democracy doesn't work"
Well, naturally, it's going to depend on your definition of socialism. Most of those states are Social Democracies but, statist authoritarians who like to cloak the iron fist of state power with meagre concessions to organized labour, like the Fabians, aside, most people into leftwing political theory seem to think that some form of direct worker control is necessary for a socialist state, and as such Democratic Socialism is the absolute, bare minimum one can go for. If you accept that definition.
Realistically, even most so-called Socialist countries like Canada or most European states are giving more and more power to corporate, state-supported economic sectors as part of their Neoliberal/Third Way orthodoxy - which has resulted in direct attacks on the welfare state and laws aimed at reducing the power of organised labour in favour of the "free movement of capital" (if you have enough). Communists, like Slavoj Zizek, have referred to people like Tony Blair, the former leader of the UK Labour Party, as "authoritarian, conservative state capitalists".
As an aside, there is an amusing overlap between the far-left versions of socialism and libertarianism, in that both decry the theft of the effort of the average worker on behalf on a greater power. In the case of the left, it seems to be the owners of the means of production (because, in order to make a profit, they have to pay workers less than the market price of the goods they make) and in the case of the right, in taxes. Apparently some political theorists have been looking into trying to unify some of the observations of the Von Mises/Austrian economic school with that of Marx, with varied results.
theres no such thing as a working socialist or communist state. the only thing which has worked so far is capitalism with a touch of socialism. even china (which people claim is communist) is capitalistic. all the rest have failed miserably.
QuoteBack to Socialism, have we established yet that it is more than Soviet Russia and "Communist" China? It's also Scandinavia, Canada, and quite a few European countries. So "Socialism doesn't work" is no more accurate than "Democracy doesn't work"
socialism along the lines of say, Sweden, which is still a capitalist economic system, costs the people around 50% of their income in taxes. (I believe at one point it was over 50%)
Education and health are socialized but they have a privatized pension system that does not suffer from the problems we have with ours, namely being insolvent.
Due to heavy use of Keynesian economics, their system gets fucked ever so often.
ok, so it's working in other countries as long as there is a foundation built on capitalism.. but damn. 50% of income goes to the state?
As a swede, I got an urge to correct above poster.
Concerning swedish taxes:
For someone who makes 0- 18 200 swedish krones (0- 2 444 US dollars)/month, taxes = 0%
18 200- 380 200 SEK (2 444- 51 052 US dollars)/month taxes is 31 %
380 200- .... SEK (51 052-... US dollars/ month) taxes= 31 + 20 %
It works pretty well here.
Edit: spelling. (Shit, it still came out confusing.)
QuoteAs a swede, I got an urge to correct above poster.
Concerning swedish taxes:
For someone who makes 0- 18 200 swedish krones (0- 2 444 US dollars)/month, taxes = 0%
18 200- 380 200 SEK (2 444- 51 052 US dollars)/month taxes is 31 %
380 200- .... SEK (51 052-... US dollars/ month) taxes= 31 + 20 %
It works pretty well here.
Edit: spelling. (Shit, it still came out confusing.)
cool, thnx for the correction on the info.
that is income tax?
I understand there is a VAT there as well, where does that factor in to those #s or does it?
I made friends with a Swedish couple in mexico a few years back and we'd sit at a local bar and talk respective politics and policies, so I'm admittedly a bit rusty on your entire system.
Quote from: Dr. Vrtig0 on August 25, 2010, 03:15:58 PM
QuoteAs a swede, I got an urge to correct above poster.
Concerning swedish taxes:
For someone who makes 0- 18 200 swedish krones (0- 2 444 US dollars)/month, taxes = 0%
18 200- 380 200 SEK (2 444- 51 052 US dollars)/month taxes is 31 %
380 200- .... SEK (51 052-... US dollars/ month) taxes= 31 + 20 %
It works pretty well here.
Edit: spelling. (Shit, it still came out confusing.)
cool, thnx for the correction on the info.
that is income tax?
I understand there is a VAT there as well, where does that factor in to those #s or does it?
I made friends with a Swedish couple in mexico a few years back and we'd sit at a local bar and talk respective politics and policies, so I'm admittedly a bit rusty on your entire system.
Economy really isn't my subject, but as I remember it it is 6, 12 or 24 procent of the price (of something) without the VAT. (Companies only)
For private persons not owning a business of some sort, the original numbers is all there is.
Quote from: Dr. Vrtig0 on August 25, 2010, 01:16:53 PM
QuoteBack to Socialism, have we established yet that it is more than Soviet Russia and "Communist" China? It's also Scandinavia, Canada, and quite a few European countries. So "Socialism doesn't work" is no more accurate than "Democracy doesn't work"
socialism along the lines of say, Sweden, which is still a capitalist economic system, costs the people around 50% of their income in taxes. (I believe at one point it was over 50%)
Education and health are socialized but they have a privatized pension system that does not suffer from the problems we have with ours, namely being insolvent.
Due to heavy use of Keynesian economics, their system gets fucked ever so often.
ok, so it's working in other countries as long as there is a foundation built on capitalism.. but damn. 50% of income goes to the state?
One of the basic assumptions of Socialist political thought is that Socialism is built on a foundation of Capitalism, just as Capitalism is built on a foundation (originally) of Feudalism.
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.
Quote from: HaggisFY on August 25, 2010, 02:59:57 PM
As a swede, I got an urge to correct above poster.
Concerning swedish taxes:
For someone who makes 0- 18 200 swedish krones (0- 2 444 US dollars)/month, taxes = 0%
18 200- 380 200 SEK (2 444- 51 052 US dollars)/month taxes is 31 %
380 200- .... SEK (51 052-... US dollars/ month) taxes= 31 + 20 %
It works pretty well here.
Edit: spelling. (Shit, it still came out confusing.)
Assuming Sweden has a similar wealth distribution to the US, that is 50% of the people's income in taxes, most of the income goes to the millionaires and billionaires here.
Quote from: Ratatosk on August 25, 2010, 09:59:09 PM
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
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 25, 2010, 11:51:35 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on August 25, 2010, 09:59:09 PM
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?
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 26, 2010, 02:00:25 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 25, 2010, 11:51:35 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on August 25, 2010, 09:59:09 PM
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?
Fuck no! You're just one of those peasants in the little ramshackle houses that are
outside of the big shiny castle on the hill. And shit still runs down hill.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 26, 2010, 02:00:25 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 25, 2010, 11:51:35 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on August 25, 2010, 09:59:09 PM
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.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 26, 2010, 02:06:38 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 26, 2010, 02:00:25 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 25, 2010, 11:51:35 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on August 25, 2010, 09:59:09 PM
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?
Fuck no! You're just one of those peasants in the little ramshackle houses that are outside of the big shiny castle on the hill. And shit still runs down hill.
Since we don't have a Monarchy, who then are the "Lords" in their shiny castles?
the privileged class? the decedents of the families who purchased large tracts of land ages ago and now profit heavily from it throughout generations?
Since it is always possible for any of these people to either mal invest, or squander their wealth and thereby loose their shiny castle, where in feudalism you could empty the coffer, but still be a "Lord" how are they not also peasants, just peasants with a lot of money?
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 26, 2010, 02:30:18 PM
Since we don't have a Monarchy, who then are the "Lords" in their shiny castles?
the privileged class? the decedents of the families who purchased large tracts of land ages ago and now profit heavily from it throughout generations?
Yes, for lack of a better term.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 26, 2010, 02:30:18 PM
Since it is always possible for any of these people to either mal invest, or squander their wealth and thereby loose their shiny castle, where in feudalism you could empty the coffer, but still be a "Lord" how are they not also peasants, just peasants with a lot of money?
That's not quite true in either case. There were a number of things that could lead to a Lord losing his shiny castle. Not the least of which would be "backing the wrong horse". If a Lord chose the wrong side in a war, he would almost certainly lose his lands, if he didn't lose his life first. The modern version of this is less deadly, and less risky as a whole. If a powerful person chooses to invest in the wrong company,politician, product, etc. they usually have backdoor means of preserving their wealth as much as possible, which may be simply not investing everything they have in it, or could be something more underhanded. Either way "backing the wrong horse" now carries far less risk. Seriously, how often do you hear about truly rich and powerful people losing their fortunes because of poor choice in investments, or unwise spending habits?
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on August 26, 2010, 02:07:41 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 26, 2010, 02:00:25 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 25, 2010, 11:51:35 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on August 25, 2010, 09:59:09 PM
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.
QuoteSure 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.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 26, 2010, 03:18:37 PM
QuoteSure 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.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on August 27, 2010, 08:06:46 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 26, 2010, 03:18:37 PM
QuoteSure 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!!! :argh!: :argh!: :argh!: :argh!: :argh!:
:lulz:
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on August 23, 2010, 05:59:00 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 23, 2010, 05:07:20 AM
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.
Quote from: Secret Level on August 23, 2010, 06:40:46 AM
Quote from: Lysergic on August 23, 2010, 06:36:00 AM
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.
Quote from: Faust on August 27, 2010, 04:44:40 PM
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.
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?
Quote from: Triple Zero on September 05, 2010, 09:45:43 PM
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.
So the latter would be the idealistic as opposed to realistic?
Well as far as I can see, the latter has never been tried large scale, so it's highly speculative at the very least.